Judgment affirmed.
We find defendant's challenge to complainant's in-court identification testimony to be unpersuasive. The record reveals that complainant had known defendant for at least six months prior to the incident and that complainant had ample opportunity to view the defendant prior to and at the time of the incident ( see, People v. Tillman, 74 A.D.2d 911). Indeed, the complainant was able to provide the police with a description that was so detailed and accurate, that they were able to arrest defendant based on the information given ( see, People v. Van Buren, 87 A.D.2d 900).
We further find that defendant's attack on complainant's credibility has no merit. Complainant's background was revealed to the jury and they nevertheless chose to credit his testimony. We will not disturb their finding ( People v. Martin, 108 A.D.2d 928; People v. Siu Wah Tse, 91 A.D.2d 350, 352). Nor is there merit to defendant's argument that the court erred in refusing to give a missing witness charge, since defendant made no showing that the testimony of the witness in question would have been material ( see, People v. Walker, 105 A.D.2d 720).
Lastly, we find that the sentence imposed upon defendant was neither harsh nor excessive. We have reviewed defendant's other contentions and we find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.