The defendant's guilt on the robbery and attempted robbery charges was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Five witnesses gave consistent testimony showing that the defendant, brandishing a .357 magnum pistol, and his codefendant, brandishing a stolen knife, robbed the occupants of an apartment being used as a "shooting gallery". The character of the witnesses, the effect of their drug use on their perceptions, and any minor inconsistencies in their testimony presented nothing more than questions of credibility for the jury (People v Mosley, 112 A.D.2d 812, 814, affd 67 N.Y.2d 985).
Defendant never requested the Trial Judge to charge the jury on circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, the issue is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05). Furthermore, a special instruction on circumstantial evidence is required only where the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence (People v Ruiz, 52 N.Y.2d 929, 930). Here, the prosecution presented direct evidence consisting of the testimony of two eyewitnesses who saw the defendant in possession of the gun later found near the site of his arrest.
Defendant's final argument that his sentence is excessive is without merit.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Carro, Asch, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.