Opinion
August 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At the reconstruction hearing conducted on April 15, 1994, and May 2, 1994, before Justice Michael F. Mullen, both the Trial Justice and the prosecutor testified that the defendant was present at both stages of his Sandoval hearing. The defendant's then-attorney had no independent recollection of whether the defendant was present. The defendant could not recall the first stage of his Sandoval hearing. As to the second stage he stated, "I would rather say to you that I was not present there". After the hearing, the court determined that the defendant was present during both stages of the Sandoval hearing. We affirm.
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 hearing court, 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). We are satisfied that the hearing court properly credited the testimony of the Trial Justice and the prosecutor (see, e.g., People v. Gonzalez, 184 A.D.2d 525). O'Brien, J.P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.