Opinion
March 7, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the eyewitness's testimony contained significant inconsistencies and should not have been believed by the jury. However, 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 claim of error regarding the submission of a verdict sheet is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05) and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Kunzeman, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.