The court‘s fact-finding determination was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court‘s determinations concerning credibility and identification. The victim‘s testimony established that he had a sufficient opportunity to observe appellant at the time of the robbery, and that he was able to recognize him when he encountered him several weeks later.
Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.