Majority
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 , 495). We reject the contention of defendant that the testimony of the confidential informant and the New York State police investigator is incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Briggs, 190 AD2d 995 , 996, lv denied 81 NY2d 1011 ; People v Stroman, 83 AD2d 370 , 373). "Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses do not render that testimony incredible as a matter of law” (People v Robinson, 209 AD2d 1041 ). The presence of any minor inconsistencies in the testimony presented an issue of credibility for the trier of fact to resolve (see, People v Robinson, supra; People v Colon, 198 AD2d 835 , 836, lv denied 83 NY2d 803 ; People v Vargas, 192 AD2d 416 , lv denied 82 NY2d 760 ).
Defendant’s conviction of bail jumping in the first degree is
Cases cited
- People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 890
- People v. Briggs 190 AD2d 995 at 996 p. 890
- People v. Stroman 83 AD2d 370 at 373 p. 890
- People v. Eiffel 81 NY2d 480 at 481 p. 891
- People v. Santangelo 194 AD2d 924 at 925 p. 891