Opinion
November 3, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( 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, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15). The minor discrepancies in the testimony of the two police officers did not render their testimony incredible as a matter of law ( see, People v. Draksin, 145 A.D.2d 500; People v. Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight accorded to the evidence presented at trial, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses ( People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). The jury's determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88).
The defendant's challenges to various remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation are unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant failed to request curative instructions or move for a mistrial once the court sustained his objections to the prosecutor's comments ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 182 A.D.2d 844; People v. Lewis, 175 A.D.2d 885). In any event, the comments were either fair responses to defense counsel's summation or not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal ( see, People v. Lamour, 203 A.D.2d 388). The defendant's remaining claims of prosecutorial misconduct are unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05) and, in any event, without merit.
Finally, the defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Bracken, J. P., Joy, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.