Opinion
2002-04933.
Decided April 12, 2004.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered May 29, 2002, convicting him of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Mae C. Quinn of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner of counsel), for respondent.
Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not advance this contention at trial ( see 470.05[2]; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainants had ample opportunity to observe the defendant and identified him at a subsequent lineup ( see People v. Lambert, 272 A.D.2d 413; People v. Rivera, 275 A.D.2d 802; People v. Phan, 225 A.D.2d 715; People v. White, 192 A.D.2d 736; People v. Hunt, 177 A.D.2d 649).
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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in its Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Duffy, 185 A.D.2d 371; People v. Guarino, 131 A.D.2d 875; People v. Sevilla, 113 A.D.2d 960).
KRAUSMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.