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 Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity as one of the robbers beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Gonzalez, 3 AD3d 579). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the factfinder, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410, cert denied 542 US 946). 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, supra).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83).