Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, Bronx County (Salvatore J. Modica, J.), rendered October 23, 2003, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted endangering the welfare of a child and harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment of conviction (Salvatore J. Modica, J.), rendered October 23, 2003, affirmed.

To the extent that defendant argues on appeal that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict because the testimony of the teenaged complainant was incredible as a matter of law, his claim is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility, including those arising from inconsistencies in testimony concerning the time frame of defendant's conduct, were properly considered by the trial court, as fact finder, and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
The fact that defendant was acquitted of other charges does not warrant a different result (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 (see People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1 [1981], we note that there is a logical basis upon which the court could have reached its mixed verdict.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Decision Date: November 28, 2006