Opinion
October 27, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.)
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that an oral statement which he gave to the police should have been suppressed is without merit. The statement was a spontaneous declaration which was in no way induced, provoked, or encouraged by the police. Thus, it was properly admitted into evidence ( see, People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286, 294; People v. Morgan, 226 A.D.2d 398; People v. Pryor, 194 A.D.2d 749). Moreover, while it appears that prior to being given Miranda warnings, the defendant signed a photograph of the stolen jewelry which also contained a partially inculpatory written statement, that writing was merely an accurate memorialization of the defendant's earlier spontaneous utterance and, as such, was cumulative in nature. Accordingly, any error in the admission of the photograph containing the writing was harmless ( see, People v Rivers, 83 A.D.2d 978, 979, affd 56 N.Y.2d 476; see also, People v Anderson, 200 A.D.2d 750; People v. Holland, 179 A.D.2d 822).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he committed robbery offenses against different people at two different locations within a relatively brief period of time is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( 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 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Copertino, J.P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.