Opinion
December 18, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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 witness ( 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).
The defendant has, for the most part, failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor made improper statements during his summation ( see, People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v Dordal, 55 N.Y.2d 954). Those comments which were objected to by defense counsel were, for the most part, followed by curative instructions, after which defense counsel neither requested further curative instructions nor moved for a mistrial. Defense counsel thus indicated that the court had sufficiently cured any error to his satisfaction ( see, People v Rosario, 195 A.D.2d 577). In any event, the remarks in question were fair comment on the evidence ( see, People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105), fair response to the comments that the defense counsel made during summation ( see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396), or harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and the court's subsequent instructions, which served to cure any prejudice to the defendant ( see, People v Basora, 75 N.Y.2d 992; People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Hart, JJ., concur.