Opinion
December 1, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Finnegan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record discloses that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Although the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence by attacking the credibility of the prosecution's principal witness, it is axiomatic that "issues of credibility are primarily for the jury, which has the `advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses'" (People v. Martin, 108 A.D.2d 928, quoting from People v. Kidd, 76 A.D.2d 665, 666, lv dismissed 51 N.Y.2d 882; People v. Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116, 122; People v Rosenfeld, 93 A.D.2d 872). We are "traditionally resistant to second-guessing [the jury's] determination on this issue" (People v. Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755). We note, furthermore, that the background and prior inconsistent statements of the witness were fully presented for the jury's consideration (see, People v. Shapiro, 117 A.D.2d 688; People v. Carter, 114 A.D.2d 420; People v. Bussey, 111 A.D.2d 403, 404). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, as we must (see, People v Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196; People v. Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29; People v. Martin, supra), we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found that the People proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Martin, supra; People v Bigelow, 106 A.D.2d 448).
In addition, the court's charge to the jury in connection with the defendant's decision not to testify was proper (see, CPL 300.10; People v. Koberstein, 103 A.D.2d 1021, affd 66 N.Y.2d 989; cf. People v. Smith, 121 A.D.2d 411), and we find no repugnancy in the jury's verdict, which acquitted the defendant of murder in the second degree while convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (see, People v Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695, 697; People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 7).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either not properly preserved for appellate review or lacking in merit. Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.