Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant's conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). We reject the contention of defendant that the testimony of the confidential informant and the New York State police investigator is incredible as a matter of law (see, People v. Briggs, 190 A.D.2d 995, 996, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1011; People v. Stroman, 83 A.D.2d 370, 373). "Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses do not render that testimony incredible as a matter of law" (People v. Robinson, 209 A.D.2d 1041). The presence of any minor inconsistencies in the testimony presented an issue of credibility for the trier of fact to resolve (see, People v Robinson, supra; People v. Colon, 198 A.D.2d 835, 836, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 803; People v. Vargas, 192 A.D.2d 416, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 760).
Defendant's conviction of bail jumping in the first degree is also supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v Eiffel, 81 N.Y.2d 480, 481; People v. Santangelo, 194 A.D.2d 924, 925, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 726). Lastly, we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.