Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Priya Raghavan of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Matthew Harnisch of counsel; Emily Aguggia on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Evelyn L. Braun, J.), rendered May 28, 2019, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was charged, inter alia, with attempted murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and reckless endangerment in the first degree in connection with a shooting incident in Queens. After a nonjury trial, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment in the first degree.

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 the defendant's identity as the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the complainant's testimony was not incredible as a matter of law, since it was not "manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory" (People v Guzman, 134 AD3d 852, 853 [2015]; see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80, 82 [2004]).

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the complainant "never equivocated about [his] core testimony identifying [the] defendant as the person who shot [at him]" (People v Villa, 174 AD3d 438, 438-439 [2019]; see People v Carmona, 185 AD3d 600, 602 [2020]), and the other evidence, including the surveillance videos, corroborated the complainant's identification testimony.

[*2] The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hooks, 148 AD3d 930, 931-932 [2017]; People v Guerrero, 129 AD3d 1102, 1103 [2015]). Mastro, J.P., Duffy, Brathwaite Nelson and Dowling, JJ., concur.