Opinion
July 3, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Suppression of the testimony regarding the identification at the precinct house was properly denied. The hearing court concluded that the identification was not impermissibly suggestive, but was unplanned, spontaneous, and not attributable to any contrivance on the part of the police (see, People v McLamb, 140 A.D.2d 717, 718; People v Hampton, 129 A.D.2d 736, 737; People v Bookhart, 117 A.D.2d 739, 740). We find no basis to disturb this ruling.
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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). While there were certain inconsistencies in the testimony, it is well settled that 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; People v Ortiz, 143 A.D.2d 150, 151). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal, and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Ortiz, supra, at 150; People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88).
The contentions regarding alleged errors at trial and during summation are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865, 866; People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953), or were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Williams, 109 A.D.2d 906, 907-908).
We have have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.