Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793), we find that the identification evidence was legally sufficient ( see Matter of Jamel G., 51 AD3d 918, 919; Matter of Christian M., 37 AD3d 834). The discrepancies and inconsistencies in the identification testimony were not of such a magnitude as to render that testimony incredible or unreliable as a matter of law ( see Matter of Jamel G., 51 AD3d 918, 919; Matter of Christian M., 37 AD3d 834; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 393; People v Lambert, 272 AD2d 413, 414; Matter of Nikkia C, 187 AD2d 581, 582). Such discrepancies and inconsistencies are matters to be considered by the finder of fact in assessing a witness's credibility ( see Matter of Christian M., 37 AD3d 834; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 393; People v Lambert, 272 AD2d 413, 414). Resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal ( see Matter of Jamel G., 51 AD3d 918, 919-920; Matter of Christian M., 37 AD3d 834; Matter of Ryan W., 143 AD2d 435, 436; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence ( cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644). Prudenti, EJ., Ritter, Florio and McCarthy, JJ., concur.