Opinion
December 12, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied suppression of the prospective in-court identification of the defendant by the eyewitness to the shooting. The witness's testimony at the Wade hearing established that he had known the defendant sufficiently well at the time of the shooting, and that his photographic identification of the defendant was merely confirmatory (see, People v Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915; People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v Brodie, 170 A.D.2d 519; People v Ambroise, 142 A.D.2d 647).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove his identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v Johnson, 185 A.D.2d 247). In any event, 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 of murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. The alleged inconsistencies in the eyewitness's testimony were fully explored before the jury. 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Lawrence, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.