Opinion
April 6, 1987
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision on the defendant's Sandoval application that the probative worth of evidence of certain past convictions on the issue of the defendant's credibility outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice to him (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236, 239; People v Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 146-147; People v Pollock, 50 N.Y.2d 547, 550; People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371).
The defendant's contention that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt because the complainant was not a credible witness is without merit. Our review of the record indicates that there were no material inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and the jury was made fully aware of her background. We further note that the complainant's testimony was strong and unshaken despite extensive cross-examination. Resolution of the issues of credibility as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented are matters properly within the province of the trier of fact whose determination should not be overturned lightly on appeal (see, People v Bauer, 113 A.D.2d 543, 551, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 648, 67 N.Y.2d 880). When viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Lewis, 64 N.Y.2d 1111, 1112; People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v Bauer, supra) the evidence was sufficient in quantity and quality to support the verdict (see, People v Fuller, 50 N.Y.2d 628, 637; People v Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116, 122; People v Bauer, supra).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.