The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility were properly considered by the trier of facts and there is no basis upon which to disturb its determinations (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). The jury could have reasonably concluded that even if the eyewitness had delayed in revealing defendant's identity to the police, his identification of defendant at trial was nevertheless reliable, and that the apparent discrepancies in the testimony of the People's other witness were explainable by the witness's confusion as to dates.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.