Opinion
April 1, 1996
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant contends that the County Court committed reversible error by its failure to charge the jury on the defense of justification contained in Penal Law § 35.15. However, no reasonable view of the evidence could support this defense ( see, People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96). Accordingly, the defendant's claim is without merit.
The defendant contends that the court erred in limiting testimony concerning prior violent acts involving third persons who were present at the scene of the crime. The defendant did not make a sufficient showing that he had been present at or otherwise knew of the alleged acts of violence prior to the shooting herein. Therefore, the court did not improperly exercise its discretion in determining that the proffered testimony was not relevant ( see, People v. Miller, 39 N.Y.2d 543).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858) or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Miller, Ritter and Hart, JJ., concur.