Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence establishing his identity as the burglar beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. McNeil, 183 A.D.2d 790; People v. Caballero, 177 A.D.2d 496). In any event, the argument is without merit. The prosecution's primary witness had an ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the burglary, and made an unequivocal identification of the defendant at trial (see, People v. Wynn, 200 A.D.2d 645; People v. McNeil, supra; People v. Caballero, supra). 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. 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). Any minor discrepancies between the eyewitness's identification testimony and the defendant's appearance presented issues of credibility to be resolved by the jury (see, People v White, 192 A.D.2d 736; People v. Rios, 180 A.D.2d 696).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the arguments raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.