Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal

Court, New York County, rendered April 17, 2001 after a jury trial (Ruth Pickholz, J.) convicting him of endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10[1]), and imposing sentence.
PER CURIAM:

Judgment of conviction rendered April 17, 2001 (Ruth Pickholz, J.) affirmed.

Defendant's present argument that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10[1]) is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, evidence that defendant repeatedly struck his 13-year-old daughter with a belt, causing injuries, supported the conclusion that defendant knowingly engaged in conduct that was likely to be injurious to his daughter (see, People v Phelps, 268 AD2d 692, lv denied 94 NY2d 924 [2002]). Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations. The fact that defendant was acquitted of other charges does not warrant a different conclusion (see, People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]). Although the law imposes no requirement that verdicts be logically consistent when viewed in light of the evidence [*2](see, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1 [1981]), we note that there is a logical basis upon which the jury could have reached its mixed verdict.

The trial court correctly instructed the jury that the defense of justification was not applicable to the endangerment charge (see, People v Fields, 134 AD2d 365 [1987], lv denied 72 NY2d 956 [1988]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.