Opinion
November 3, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's arguments concerning the unreliability of his identification by an eyewitness and the complainant, both of whom knew him and saw him on a daily basis and concededly correctly identified his accomplice. Regarding the conflicting exculpatory testimony of the defendant's accomplice, "resolution of credibility [was] properly for the trier of fact" (see, People v La Borde, 76 A.D.2d 869, 870; People v Sutton, 108 A.D.2d 942; lv denied 65 N.Y.2d 930). Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Bracken and Kooper, JJ., concur.