Opinion
May 13, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that, given the inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the reasonableness of his testimony and that of his codefendant, his conviction of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree is against the weight of the credible evidence. We disagree. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded 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).
The defendant's contention that reversal of his conviction is required because the trial court failed to impose a sanction for the People's violation of People v Rosario ( 9 N.Y.2d 286) is without merit. At trial, one of the detectives involved in the investigation testified that he submitted to a police administrative aide to be typed a handwritten version of the so-called "61" report of his initial encounter with the complainants, but that neither the typed version nor his handwritten version was returned to him. The defendant voiced no objection at this point, nor did he make any requests of the trial court. Thereafter, at the precharge conference, the defendant's attorney indicated that she was going to prepare over the ensuing weekend an adverse inference charge based on the detective's testimony. On the following Monday counsel indicated, in response to the court's inquiry, that she had looked the charge up and it was not really what she wanted. NO further requests were made. In light of the foregoing, the defendant cannot now claim that he is entitled to a new trial based upon the trial court's failure to impose any sanctions (see, People v Rashid, 164 A.D.2d 951; see also, People v Best, 145 A.D.2d 499).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.