Opinion
May 8, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Namm, 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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant contends that the victim's identification testimony was insufficient to support the verdict. His argument, however, is based on the erroneous premise that the victim made a misidentification during a pretrial lineup procedure. The record reveals that the victim, in fact, recognized and selected the defendant in three separate lineups. She also positively identified him during the trial. Since resolution of issues of credibility as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence are primarily questions for the jury, and since the jury's verdict was supported by the record, the defendant's argument in this regard must be rejected (see, People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86).
The defendant additionally contends that his warrantless arrest was improper. However, in view of the fact that the defendant was arrested in a backyard, and not in his home, his claim of a violation of his constitutional rights, pursuant to the holding in Payton v New York ( 445 U.S. 573), is similarly unavailing.
We further find that the sentence was neither harsh nor excessive.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.