Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the identification evidence was preserved for appellate review (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56; People v Beriguete, 51 AD3d 939; People v Mendez, 34 AD3d 697). That challenge, however, is without merit. 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 discrepancies and inconsistencies between the identification testimony of the complainant and a witness and statements in the police reports were properly considered by the jury (see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80; People v Colon, 42 AD3d 549; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392; People v Fields, 28 AD3d 789).