Opinion
June 10, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). The defendant's contention that the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses, including that of the eight-year-old victim, was so incredible that the jury should not have believed their testimony is without merit. It is settled that the 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). In the instant case, the complainant described her attack in detail and was subjected to extensive cross-examination. Any discrepancies in the testimony cited by the defendant are too insignificant to detract from the jury's implicit resolution of the issue of credibility in favor of the People's witnesses (see, People v Danza, 127 A.D.2d 781, 782; cf., People v Vargas, 126 A.D.2d 764, 765). 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).
Further, the prosecutor's opening statement and summation did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Most of the claimed improprieties have not been preserved for review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05; People v Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641, 642; People v Black, 171 A.D.2d 799), or the court issued adequate curative instructions with respect thereto which were not objected to (see, People v Walker, 168 A.D.2d 525), or were responsive to the defense counsel's summation and did not exceed the bounds of fair comment on the evidence (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 398-399; People v Walker, supra).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.