Opinion
December 21, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the prosecution's witnesses should not have been believed by the jury because their testimony was incredible and inconsistent. However, 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; People v. Newell, 173 A.D.2d 864). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). 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 court properly exercised its discretion when it partially closed the courtroom during the trial testimony of the undercover police officer. The undercover officer testified at a Hinton hearing that he continued to work in an undercover capacity in the area where the defendant was arrested, that several of his cases from the area of the defendant's arrest were pending or remained open with lost subjects, and that he had traveled to the courthouse in an unmarked car and entered the building through a side entrance because of safety considerations. The court also noted that four of the six cases on the calendar that day were drug cases from the area of the defendant's arrest and three of those defendants were not in custody ( see, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490; People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310).
Moreover, an officer was posted outside the courtroom to inquire as to anyone who attempted to enter the courtroom during the undercover officer's testimony. Friends, relatives and attorneys were to be allowed entry. If anyone else sought to enter, a sidebar was to be held ( see, People v. Brown, 243 A.D.2d 641; People v. Rivera, 237 A.D.2d 178). Accordingly, the defendant was not deprived of his right to a public trial.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Miller, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.