Opinion
December 27, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An accomplice to the murder testified in detail as to how the defendant intentionally shot and killed the victim. The accomplice's testimony was supported by medical, ballistics, and physical evidence gathered by the police in their investigation, and was sufficiently corroborated by an eyewitness whose testimony connected the defendant to the crime in accordance with the requirements of CPL 60.22 (1) (see, People v Hudson, 51 N.Y.2d 233, 238; People v Johnson, 188 A.D.2d 552). Although there were minor inconsistencies between the testimony provided by the accomplice and an eyewitness, 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.