Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410, cert denied 542 US 946; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633). The fact that some of the People's witnesses had unsavory backgrounds and testified pursuant to cooperation agreements did not render their testimony incredible ( see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80; People v Adams, 302 AD2d 601).
The defendant's contention that he was entitled to an accomplice corroboration charge pursuant to CPL 60.22 is also unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Edwards, 28 AD3d 491, 492; People v Rudd, 1 AD3d 539, 540) and, in any event, is without merit ( see e.g. People v Edwards, 28 AD3d at 492; People v Young, 235 AD2d 441, 442; People v Morillo, 156 AD2d 479, 480).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 176; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).