Opinion
February 14, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the hearing court properly denied his request to suppress the proposed testimony of the three complainants concerning their pretrial and in-court identifications of the defendant (see, People v Collins, 131 A.D.2d 497; People v Higgs, 111 A.D.2d 410; People v Jackson, 108 A.D.2d 757; People v Dukes, 97 A.D.2d 445).
Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction. "[T]he evidence sustains the jury's verdict that [the] defendant was guilty of aiding in the robbery because of his participation as the driver of the getaway car (Penal Law, § 20.00)" (People v Jackson, 44 N.Y.2d 935, 937; see, People v Keitt, 42 N.Y.2d 926).
In addition, we find no merit to the defendant's contention that the prosecution's witnesses, because of the alleged inconsistencies in their testimony, should not have been believed by the jury. 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 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). 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). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.