Opinion
November 1, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Mogil, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Officer Smith testified at the Mapp hearing that he observed the officers in the other backup team arrest a woman from whom they recovered two ziplock bags of crack cocaine. Upon learning that he did not receive the radio transmission from the observation team due to a faulty radio, he contacted the observation team using a backup radio. Pursuant to that communication, Officer Smith arrested the defendant, the seller of the crack cocaine, shortly thereafter.
The testimony of an arresting officer who relies upon information provided by another officer who has personally witnessed the defendant commit the crime just prior to the radio transmission, if credited by the hearing court, will establish probable cause for the arrest of the defendant (see, People v Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, 51-52, cert denied 469 U.S. 852; People v Pacheco, 192 A.D.2d 625; People v Mariner, 147 A.D.2d 659, 660). In the instant case, the hearing court properly credited the testimony of Officer Smith, who was entitled to rely upon the personal observations of the drug sale by his fellow officers. The defendant's proximity to the crime scene, his appearance, which closely matched the detailed description transmitted by the officers who observed the sale, as well as the fact that the buyer was apprehended shortly after the sale possessing crack cocaine, constituted facts and circumstances which, when viewed together, would lead a reasonable person having the same expertise as the arresting officer to conclude that the defendant had perpetrated the sale (see, People v Pacheco, supra; People v Landry, 187 A.D.2d 732).
Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a 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. 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.