Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that there was legally insufficient evidence supporting his conviction because the testimony of an eyewitness to the crime was incredible as a matter of law is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that an eyewitness has a criminal history will not render that witness's testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Walker, 215 A.D.2d 607), especially when the criminal history is fully explored before the jury. In addition, any minor inconsistency in the witness's testimony regarding tangential matters will not render the witness's testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Walker, supra; People v Stackhouse, 201 A.D.2d 686). Moreover, 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 imposition of consecutive sentences for murder in the second degree and assault in the second degree was not illegal (see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 361; People v Sumpter, 203 A.D.2d 605).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Thompson, J.P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.