Judgment affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the People's case, since the proof adduced at trial was not only legally sufficient to establish every element of the crimes charged but was, in fact, overwhelming. We find nothing incredible as a matter of law about the identification testimony of the complainant. The accuracy of an eyewitness identification is a question of fact to be resolved by the jury ( People v Dukes, 97 A.D.2d 445).
Further, under the circumstances, defendant's sentence was neither unduly harsh nor excessive. Lazer, J.P., Bracken, O'Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.