Opinion
February 13, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the eyewitness's testimony was insufficient to establish his identity as one of the perpetrators beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. Viewing that testimony in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity as one of the perpetrators 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant's contention that the sentence imposed is excessive is without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Brown, J.P., Rubin, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.