Opinion
August 8, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant contends that the testimony of the victim and an off-duty police officer who witnessed the robbery were too inconsistent to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, 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 (CPL 470.15).
In regard to the Sandoval ruling, the court correctly noted that the defendant's prior violation relating to the filing of a false report to the police had a direct bearing on his credibility (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Weinstein, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.