Opinion
October 19, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (People v. Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29), we find the evidence against the defendant was legally sufficient. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, and bearing in mind that the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony are generally matters for resolution by the jury (see, People v. Bauer, 113 A.D.2d 543, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 648), we are satisfied that the defendant's guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15; see also, People v. Centino, 133 A.D.2d 776 [decided herewith]).
The prosecutor's cross-examination regarding the defendant's homosexuality was not designed to humiliate him or to elicit irrelevant and prejudicial material, as the defendant contends. The defendant claimed that he and the complainant were involved in a prior homosexual relationship and that he had been invited into the burglarized apartment, all of which was denied by the complainant.
Finally, the prosecutor's summation can be evaluated fairly only in comparison to that of the defense (People v. Singleton, 121 A.D.2d 752, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 918). In this case, the defendant challenged the credibility of the People's witness and vouched for his own witnesses. The record indicates that the prosecutor's comments constituted a fair response to the defendant's summation and did not deny him a fair trial (see, People v. Centino, supra; People v. Hopkins, 58 N.Y.2d 1079, 1083). Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.