Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the testimony of the complainant, the sole eyewitness, was not worthy of belief. We disagree. Although the complainant was a victim of cerebral palsy and had difficulty, at times, expressing himself, a review of the trial minutes discloses no problems or confusion with the totality of his testimony. Furthermore, portions of the complainant's testimony were corroborated by other evidence, including the observations of the arresting officer who came upon the scene immediately after the incident and apprehended the defendant within a short distance of the site of the robbery.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find 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 (CPL 470.15).
We find that under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.