Opinion
June 29, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, she was not entitled to examine the arresting officer's memo book in its entirety. The trial court, having properly made an in camera examination of the memo book to determine its relevancy (see, People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 149; People v. Gallardo, 173 A.D.2d 636, 637), provided the defendant with only those entries which pertained to the officer's testimony. The defendant had no right to conduct a "tour of investigation seeking generally useful information" (People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 289-290, cert denied 368 U.S. 866), but was entitled only to that information which was relevant to the witness's testimony (see, CPL 240.45 [a]).
The defendant contends that the testimony of the arresting officer should not have been believed by the jury, because of inconsistencies and details which the officer could not recall. Resolution of issues of credibility, however, 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, 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 (CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Santucci, JJ., concur.