Opinion
February 25, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, 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 identity as the drug seller beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant contends that the testimony of the People's witnesses was not credible, due, in part, to inconsistencies and the lack of corroboration, and that it therefore should not have been accepted by the jury. However, resolution of issues of credibility as well as the weight to be accorded 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, 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; People v Tisdale, 141 A.D.2d 583, 584).
Contrary to the defendant's further contentions, the trial court, in imposing sentence, did not consider inappropriate factors (see, People v Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, 411-412, cert denied 449 U.S. 1087; People v Norfleet, 146 A.D.2d 812, 813; People v Cunningham, 153 A.D.2d 700; People v Marrero, 110 A.D.2d 785, 786), and we find no basis to modify the sentence imposed. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.