—[*1] Randall D. Unger, Bayside, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Jennifer Etkin of counsel), for respondent. Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered September 3, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity as one of the robbers beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Gonzalez, 3 AD3d 579 [2004]). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the factfinder, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, supra).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]). [*2]

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.