Opinion
June 12, 1995
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 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. 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 (see, CPL 470.15). 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 trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84). Its determination should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Covington, 209 A.D.2d 713; People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86).
The defendant contends that he was denied his right to testify before the Grand Jury due to an Assistant District Attorney's refusal to inform him as to which of his past offenses would be used to attempt to impeach him in the event he testified. The defendant further contends that the denial of his right to testify before the Grand Jury impaired the integrity of the Grand Jury proceedings to such an extent that the indictment should have been dismissed. We disagree. Since there was no right to a Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) prior to the defendant's testifying at the Grand Jury proceedings (see, People v. Thomas, 215 A.D.2d 701), the Supreme Court properly denied the motion to dismiss the indictment.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Pizzuto, J.P., Hart, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.