Opinion
July 20, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, 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, 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 finder of fact, 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, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict, of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that he was provided with meaningful representation (see, People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). The defendant bears the high burden of demonstrating that he was deprived of a fair trial as the result of counsel's performance (see, People v. Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021, 1022), and simple disagreement with strategies and trial tactics will not suffice (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708-709).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.