Opinion
April 6, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Friedman, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant contends that the Family Court's fact-finding order was against the weight of the evidence because the complainant's description of the occurrence revealed that she had no opportunity to observe the identity of her assailant. We disagree. The complainant unequivocally testified that she observed the appellant shake open the blade of a box cutter and slash her arm, and the Family Court fully credited the complainant's testimony. 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 fact-finder, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Moreover, since this case was tried before a court without a jury, "great deference should be accorded the determination of the [hearing] court in assessing the credibility [of witnesses] and resolving disputed questions of fact" (Matter of Nikim A., 179 A.D.2d 638; Matter of Bernard J., 171 A.D.2d 794; Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the court's determination was not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15). Bracken, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.