Opinion
Submitted November 29, 1999
January 31, 2000
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered June 11, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Gary Cohen, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Sholom J. Twersky of counsel), for respondent.
GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the lineup was unduly suggestive is without merit. The police took reasonable steps to conceal the defendant's distinctive hairstyle by requiring all of the lineup participants to wear their visored caps turned backwards (see, People v. Walker, 215 A.D.2d 607 ; People v. Meatley, 162 A.D.2d 721, 722 ). Any disparity in the heights of the lineup participants was remedied by the fact that they were seated during the identification procedure (see, People v. Garcia, 215 A.D.2d 584, 585 ). Moreover, the witnesses who identified the defendant were kept in separate rooms before the separate identification procedures.
The defendant's contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is based solely on allegations concerning the credibility of the witnesses. The 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 ). The jury's 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5]).
The defendant's remaining contention concerning the court's charge to the jury is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]). In any event, the charge, when considered as a whole, accurately conveyed the correct standard to the jury (see,People v. Fields, 87 N.Y.2d 821, 823 ; People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 832 ).
MANGANO, P.J., THOMPSON, ALTMAN, and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.