Opinion
June 2, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he robbed the occupants of a grocery store at gun point is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinskz, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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, 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).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to set aside the verdict (see, People v. Suarez, 98 A.D.2d 678; People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.
O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.