Opinion
December 11, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in a 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. 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 witness (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). 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 (CPL 470.15).
Nor is reversal of the conviction warranted on the ground that the trial court restricted the defendant's access to the complainant's psychiatric records and limited cross-examination of the complainant with respect to the information contained in a certain psychiatric report which had been disclosed to the defense. The record reveals that the trial court conducted an in camera inspection of the records in issue. Accordingly, the trier of fact was fully apprised of the complainant's background and, therefore, was able to "make a sound judgment" as to her credibility and veracity (People v Diaz, 134 A.D.2d 445, 446; People v Spano, 57 A.D.2d 715; People v Kampshoff, 53 A.D.2d 325, cert denied 433 U.S. 911).
We have examined the defendant's challenge to the propriety of the sentence and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.