The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Questions of credibility were properly presented to the jury and we see no reason to disturb its findings ( see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94).
Defendant's argument regarding the admission of a photograph of the coat stolen from the complainant is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v. Graham, 186 A.D.2d 47, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 975), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that no prejudice inured to defendant as a result of either the decision to return the complainant's coat to him on a cold evening in February, or the admission of a photograph of the coat at trial ( People v. Graham, supra, at 48; Penal Law § 450.10).
The Sandoval ruling was an appropriate exercise of discretion.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.