Opinion
February 14, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Pano Z. Patsalos, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Campbell, 209 A.D.2d 631; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant was identified by two State Troopers as the person who sold cocaine to each of them. Issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be given to their testimony, are primarily questions for the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses. Its determination should not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84; People v. Campbell, supra; People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court fully complied with the jury's request to read back the testimony of both undercover troopers and, therefore, it meaningfully responded to the jury's request (see, CPL 310.30; People v Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296; People v. Andino, 113 A.D.2d 944).
The County Court did not improperly marshall the evidence with regard to the issue of identification (see, 1 CJI[NY] 10.01, at 583-588).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive under all of the circumstances (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Lawrence, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.