DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
While the eyewitness to the shooting herein had an unsavory and criminal background and testified pursuant to a cooperation agreement, these facts raised an issue of credibility which the jury resolved in favor of the prosecution (see, People v. Alston, 243 A.D.2d 573; People v. McDaniel, 233 A.D.2d 343; People v. Dennis, 223 A.D.2d 599; People v. Taylor, 177 A.D.2d 727). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The trial court did not err in admitting the victim's statements to the responding police officers on the basis that the statements constituted excited utterances (see, People v. Vasquez, 88 N.Y.2d 561; People v. Brown, 70 N.Y.2d 513). The circumstances under which the victim made the statements, identifying the defendant as the shooter, "reasonably justify the conclusion that the remarks were not made under the impetus of studied reflection" (People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493, 497; see also, People v. Durio, 175 A.D.2d 842, 844; People v. Moore, 173 A.D.2d 568).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not require reversal.