Opinion
October 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The testimony established that the complainant identified the defendant in a lineup as the individual who robbed him of $70 and his taxicab at gunpoint. Prior to the robbery, the complainant had seen the defendant on two occasions in the neighborhood. He also had ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the robbery. Thus, the evidence establishing the defendant's identity as the robber was overwhelming.
The minor inconsistencies regarding the location of the robbery created a credibility issue, the resolution of which was primarily the function of the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94; People v Middleton, 143 A.D.2d 1053). 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).
We also find that the defendant's inculpatory statement to a detective was made voluntarily after he had been read the Miranda rights, and had knowingly and intelligently waived them. The record shows that although the defendant, who had been involved in an automobile accident, was having pains, seemed tired and appeared to exhibit symptoms of methadone withdrawal, he was coherent, alert and fully aware of his surroundings and what he was doing when he spoke to the detective in a waiting room of a hospital (see, People v. Rice, 199 A.D.2d 1054; People v. Mercado, 198 A.D.2d 380; People v. Eastman, 114 A.D.2d 509; People v. Pearson, 106 A.D.2d 588).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J.P., Thompson, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.