Opinion
May 21, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, was legally sufficient to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). It is well settled that 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 had the opportunity to see and hear 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).
Additionally, the defendant's challenge to the propriety of the trial court's justification charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Richardson, 151 A.D.2d 617; People v. Henegan, 150 A.D.2d 606; People v. Douglas, 149 A.D.2d 613). The claim, in any event, is devoid of merit since the trial court's instructions neither shifted nor otherwise diluted the People's burden of proof.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including his claim regarding the severity of the sentence imposed, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.