It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a nonjury trial of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30 [5]). Defendant contends that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing and intelligent because the colloquy conducted by Supreme Court was inadequate. Defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review ( see People v Jackson, 26 AD3d 781, 781-782, lv denied 6 NY3d 849; People v Williams, 5 AD3d 1043, lv denied 2 NY3d 809) and, in any event, his contention lacks merit ( see generally People v Smith, 6 NY3d 827, cert denied 548 US ___, 126 S Ct 2971). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence based on minor inconsistencies in the victim's testimony ( see People v Lauderdale, 13 AD3d 1173; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.