Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Our examination of the record reveals the existence of sufficient evidence to sustain the trial court's verdict. Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, e.g., People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we find that " `any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime[s] beyond a reasonable doubt'" (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, quoting from Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319). Although the conflicting testimony presented an issue of credibility, the resolution of that issue was within the province of the trier of fact (see, People v Shapiro, 117 A.D.2d 688), and the mere fact that the court, as the trier of fact, might have adopted a competing inference did not preclude it from reaching the verdict it did (see, People v Castillo, 47 N.Y.2d 270, 277-278; People v Dobranski, 89 A.D.2d 250, 252). Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Bracken and Kooper, JJ., concur.