Opinion
Argued September 16, 1999
October 28, 1999
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The identification testimony of the complainant, who at the time of the robbery had an opportunity to view the defendant at close range under bright lighting and subsequently identified him at a lineup nine days later, was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Pena, 242 A.D.2d 546 ; People v. Lopez, 209 A.D.2d 442 ).
Although the defendant presented alibi witnesses who testified that he was with them at the time of the robbery, this only served to raise an issue of credibility, which the jury resolved in favor of the prosecution (see, People v. Alston, 243 A.D.2d 573 ; People v. Dennis, 223 A.D.2d 599 ). 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 ). The jury's 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[5]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396 ;People v. Feliciano, 254 A.D.2d 496 ).
SANTUCCI, J.P., THOMPSON, SULLIVAN, and SMITH, JJ., concur.