Opinion
June 27, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Curci, J., Moskowitz, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Adams, 194 A.D.2d 680; People v. Hemphill, 187 A.D.2d 728; People v. Johnson, 185 A.D.2d 247). In any event, viewing the evidence in a 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 guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The undercover officer had ample time to observe the defendant during the drug transaction. The undercover officer made a drive-by identification of the defendant after he was taken into custody to ensure that the back-up team apprehended the proper individual, and the undercover officer positively identified the defendant at the station house.
Although the defendant argues that there were inconsistencies and discrepancies in the police officers' testimony, 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). 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).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention regarding the excessiveness of his sentences, and find it to be without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Goldstein, JJ., concur.