We reject defendant's contention that the victim's testimony was "`manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory'" (People v Shedrick, 104 A.D.2d 263, 274, affd 66 N.Y.2d 1015, quoting People v Stroman, 83 A.D.2d 370, 373) as to render it incredible as a matter of law. The fact that the victim's testimony was inconsistent in some respects does not render it impossible of belief so that it should not have been presented to the jury. Rather, the testimony was "well within the jury's domain for determining credibility" (People v Sweet, 132 A.D.2d 795, 796). Defendant's assertion of inadequate legal representation also lacks merit. Viewing trial counsel's performance in its entirety together with the circumstances of the case, we cannot say that defense counsel failed to meet the standards enunciated in People v Baldi ( 54 N.Y.2d 137). Finally, given defendant's lengthy criminal history and the violent nature of the crimes involved herein, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in imposing concurrent prison sentences of 12 1/2 to 25 years for his convictions of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree and 3 1/2 to 7 years for his conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree (see, People v Gholston, 137 A.D.2d 765, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 896; People v Collins, 136 A.D.2d 720, 722, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 894).
Casey, J.P., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.