It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of eight counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15, [4]) and four counts of robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [2] [b]). We reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The testimony of the People's witnesses was not incredible as a matter of law ( see People v Smith, 32 AD3d 1291, 1292, lv denied 8 NY3d 849), and we see no reason to disturb the jury's resolution of credibility issues ( see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the prosecutor's explanations for striking a prospective juror in response to his Batson challenge were pretextual inasmuch as he failed to provide County Court with any reason for his contention ( see People v Santiago, 272 AD2d 418, lv denied 95 NY2d 907), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [a]). We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel ( see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). We have considered defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is lacking in merit.