Opinion
April 27, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the hearing court properly determined that the identifications made by the complaining witnesses were merely confirmatory in nature, since both men knew the defendant prior to the commission of the instant crimes (see, People v Johnson, 124 A.D.2d 748; People v Fleming, 109 A.D.2d 848; see also, People v Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915; People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v Hooper, 112 A.D.2d 317; People v Vargas, 118 Misc.2d 477, 481). Notably, the complainant Bikramdit Appana testified that he had observed the defendant in the neighborhood on approximately 40 different occasions, while the complainant Jagat Appana testified that he had known the defendant for two years and had seen him regularly on the street. In light of the foregoing, the issue of suggestiveness is not relevant (see, People v Fleming, supra, at 849). Further, we find no error in the court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), permitting the prosecutor to ask the defendant whether he had ever been convicted of assault. It is well settled that the extent of cross-examination bearing on the credibility of a witness "is discretionary with the trial court and its rulings are not subject to review, unless it clearly appears that the discretion has been abused" (People v Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 262-263, cert denied 423 U.S. 861; see also, People v Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 146-147). There is nothing in the record which indicates that the court did not in fact balance the probative worth of the impeaching material on the issue of the defendant's credibility against the risk that it might be taken as an indication of a propensity to commit the crimes charged, or that its admission might unfairly deter him from testifying at the trial (see, People v Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882, 883). Moreover, the "mere fact that the acts used as cross-examination material are similar in nature to the conduct alleged at trial does not, in and of itself, mandate preclusion" (People v Hall, 99 A.D.2d 843; see also, People v Rahman, supra).
Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the People, and bearing in mind that the issues of credibility, reliability and the weight to be given to the evidence are primarily for the jury, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116). We note that it is within the province of the jury to resolve questions of credibility involving the accuracy of an eyewitness identification (see, People v Batts, 111 A.D.2d 761, 762; People v Herriot, 110 A.D.2d 851).
Finally, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed upon the defendant which, under the circumstances, was neither unduly harsh nor excessive. Lawrence, J.P., Weinstein, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.