Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35). On appeal, he argues that the 18-day delay between the close of proof and the rendering of a verdict denied him his right to a prompt verdict (see, CPL 320.20 [d]; 350.10 [3] [d]; People v. South, 41 N.Y.2d 451). Inasmuch as defendant failed to object to the delay, that issue has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Waldron, 162 A.D.2d 485, 486; People v. Wimes, 151 A.D.2d 1035, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 822; People v. Woodley, 141 A.D.2d 587, 588; People v. Andrews, 102 A.D.2d 894; cf., People v. Hryn, 144 A.D.2d 961). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, the delay was not unreasonable as a matter of law (see, People v South, supra).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we conclude that the testimony of the defense witnesses presented a question of credibility for the court to resolve, and its resolution of that issue is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).