Judgment affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that, based upon the complainant's prior knowledge of defendant, her ability to see defendant during the robbery and her subsequent in-court identification, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, since a "`rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt'" (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, quoting from Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319; People v Bigelow, 106 A.D.2d 448). Although it is true that there were inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution's witness, and the defendant presented an alibi defense, the resolution of issues as to identification and credibility rests with the jury (People v Herriot, 110 A.D.2d 851; People v Bigelow, supra). The fact that there was only one witness does not render the evidence less than sufficient (see, People v Dure, 102 A.D.2d 873).
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Niehoff, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.