Opinion
October 10, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the People failed to prove his identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt since he did not raise this issue on his motion for a trial order of dismissal (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245; see also, People v. White, 192 A.D.2d 736; People v. Johnson, 185 A.D.2d 247; People v. Rios, 180 A.D.2d 696). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial 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 beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's identity as the individual who robbed the complainant. Moreover, 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 is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Joy, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.