Opinion
November 27, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County, Schechter, J., Martinez-Perez, J.
Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We disagree with the appellant's contention that the case under Kings County Docket No. 831/93 should have been dismissed for failure to prosecute or in the furtherance of justice on the ground of "exceptionally serious misconduct" of the presentment agency (Family Ct Act § 315.2 [c]). A presentment agency is not required to join in a single petition all offenses arising out of the same underlying circumstances (see, Matter of Lee M., 126 A.D.2d 645, 646). The appellant's argument that the delay by the presentment agency in filing the instant petition made it impossible to consolidate this case with a previous case purportedly arising out of the same circumstances pursuant to Family Court Act § 311.6 (4) is without merit. The crimes shared no elements and were, therefore, separate and distinct criminal transactions and not joinable in accord with Family Court Act § 311.6. Accordingly, the crimes were properly charged in separate petitions (see, Matter of Lee M., supra).
Moreover, the record does not support the appellant's contention that the presentment agency delayed the case deliberately as part of a strategy. Thus, contrary to the appellant's assertion, the delay in prosecuting the drug charges did not constitute "any exceptionally serious misconduct of law enforcement personnel in the * * * presentment of the petition" (Family Ct Act § 315.2 [c]).
We further find that it cannot reasonably be maintained that the court's findings in this case were "manifestly erroneous or so plainly unjustified by the evidence that the interests of justice necessitate their nullification" (People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, who saw and heard the witnesses. The Family Court's factual findings and credibility determinations are entitled to great weight on appeal, and its ultimate conclusion is accorded the same deference as a jury verdict (see, Matter of Bernard J., 171 A.D.2d 794; Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507; Matter of Y.K., 213 A.D.2d 638). There is nothing in the record to support the appellant's conclusory assertion that the arresting officer's testimony "has all the appearances of having been patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections". On the contrary, the officer's testimony at the hearing shows consistency, good recall, and forthrightness. Moreover, she was subjected to a lengthy and thorough cross-examination during which her testimony remained consistent. Thus, the court's implicit finding that the officer's testimony was credible should not be disturbed.
We find no merit to the appellant's remaining contentions. Balletta, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.