Opinion
October 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, 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 is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility and 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 of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People made a prima facie showing of entitlement to a missing-witness charge with respect to the defendant's wife. The People adequately demonstrated that the defendant's wife was in a position to observe the events relative to the defendant's purported alibi (see, People v. Kitching, 78 N.Y.2d 532). In addition, the defendant's wife was under the defendant's control (see, People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424). Therefore, the court did not err by giving a missing-witness charge.
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Balletta and Hart, JJ., concur.