Opinion
April 20, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30, as the People met their burden of proving, at a hearing at which both sides were represented, that less than six months of pretrial delay was chargeable to them (see, People v Berkowitz, 50 N.Y.2d 333).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), and keeping in mind that the credibility and accuracy of the witnesses' testimony is primarily for the jury to determine (see, People v Bigelow, 106 A.D.2d 448), it cannot be said that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the defendant's conviction of the crimes charged. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence was of sufficient quantity and quality to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, CPL 470.15).
The sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present which would warrant disturbance of the sentencing court's exercise of discretion (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.