People v. Murray (124 A.D.2d 603, 1986)

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s arguments concerning the unreliability of his identification by an eyewitness and the complainant, both of whom knew him and saw him on a daily basis and concededly correctly identified his accomplice. Regarding the conflicting exculpatory testimony of the defendant’s accomplice, "resolution of credibility [was] properly for the trier of fact” (see, People v La Borde, 76 AD2d 869, 870; People v Sutton, 108 AD2d 942; lv denied 65 NY2d 930). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Bracken and Kooper, JJ., concur.