Opinion
May 22, 1989
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County, Sparrow, J., Schechter, J.
Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
With respect to docket No. D-5873/87, the appellant essentially contends that the complainant's testimony was incredible because it was physically impossible for the theft to have occurred as he described it. However, whether the incident could have physically occurred as the complainant described it was clearly a question of fact for the Family Court to initially determine. As we have repeatedly stated, 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 trier of facts, 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 generally, 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).
In addition, we find that the Family Court's determination under docket No. D-5873/87 to place the appellant in an out-of-region Title II facility of the New York State Division for Youth was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see generally, Matter of Katherine W., 62 N.Y.2d 947, 948).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the other contention raised by the appellant with respect to the dispositional order under docket No. D-10379/87. Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.