Opinion
October 20, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the 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.
Notwithstanding the discrepancies between the actual age and weight of the defendant and the description given to the police by the complainant, it cannot be said that the complainant's testimony was unworthy of belief ( see, People v. Williams, 226 A.D.2d 752; People v. Phan Tam, 225 A.D.2d 715). 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's bare assertion that the prosecutor used a disproportionate number of peremptory challenges to exclude black women from the jury was insufficient to make a prima facie showing under Batson v. Kentucky ( 476 U.S. 79; see, People v Jenkins, 84 N.Y.2d 1001, 1003; People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 266; People v. Vidal, 212 A.D.2d 553, 554).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit ( see, Matter of Andrew T., 182 A.D.2d 630).
Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.