Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and a statement made by him to law enforcement officials, since the police possessed probable cause to arrest him ( see People v Griffin, 15 AD3d 502 [2005]; People v Soto, 279 AD2d 592; People v Burton, 194 AD2d 683, 684).
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. The victim's criminal record, history of drug use, and explanations regarding his previous arrests were matters fully explored at trial and did not render his testimony incredible as a matter of law, but merely raised an issue of credibility for the jury to consider ( see People v Smith, 302 AD2d 615, 616; People v Pagan, 291 AD2d 509, 510; People v Toro, 272 AD2d 351). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The trial court did not violate the defendant's right of confrontation ( see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36) in admitting at a joint trial the prior statement of a nontestifying codefendant against that codefendant only ( see United States v Lung Fong Chen, 393 F3d 139, 150). Moreover, the defendant's confrontation rights were properly safeguarded by the measures taken by the court in admitting the statement ( see People v Bowen, 309 AD2d 600; People v Timberlake, 300 AD2d 219; People v Chalk, 199 AD2d 813; People v Borgos, 168 AD2d 628).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).