Judgment affirmed.
Defendant contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He claims that the testimony of the complaining witness was incredible as a matter of law. In view of the jury verdict we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the People ( People v. Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 1133). Although minor inconsistencies appear in the complainant's testimony, resolution of credibility was properly for the trier of fact ( see, People v. La Borde, 76 A.D.2d 869; People v Rosenfeld, 93 A.D.2d 872). We are "traditionally resistant to second guessing its determination on this issue" ( People v. Di Girolamo, supra, p 755; see, People v. Rodriguez, 72 A.D.2d 571), and the facts in the case at bar do not compel the conclusion that a reasonable doubt existed as a matter of law. Mollen, P.J., Gibbons, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.