Opinion
February 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends, inter alia, that the complainant's testimony regarding his ability to recognize and identify the defendant was both inconsistent and incredible. 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 jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84). 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, he was provided with meaningful representation (see, People v. Ellis, 81 N.Y.2d 854; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.