Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Presentment Agency and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), the evidence is sufficient as a matter of law to prove appellant's identity as the perpetrator of the crime. The complainant viewed appellant at close range for fifteen to twenty minutes before appellant grabbed the 14-karat gold chain from the top of complainant's pants. The accuracy of the identification merely presented an issue of fact for the court to assess in determining the credibility of the witnesses (People v Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116, 122). Further, the testimony that appellant grabbed the chain from the complainant and failed to return it permitted the inference to be drawn that appellant intended to steal the complainant's property. (See, People v Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 381.)
We have considered appellant's other claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.