Opinion
March 23, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, 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 was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant's previous criminal convictions and minor inconsistencies in his testimony did not render him an inherently incredible witness (see, People v. Bartello, 243 A.D.2d 483; People v. Breeden, 220 A.D.2d 761; People v. Walcott, 171 A.D.2d 767). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded 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). Here, the jury resolved the credibility issues in favor of the prosecution. Its determination should not be overturned lightly on appeal. 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 remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v. Walker, 215 A.D.2d 607) or without merit (People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
O'Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.