Opinion
April 3, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Corriero, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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. Various witnesses testified they observed the so-called "chain snatching" at gunpoint, and the subsequent taking of money of which the defendant stands convicted. Two witnesses identified the defendant as the assailant. Moreover, the defendant was arrested near the scene of the crime shortly after it occurred wearing the clothing described by witnesses as that the robber wore. He was also then in possession of a chain with a broken clasp and money of the denominations the victim testified was taken from him by the defendant, but which the defendant testified was his.
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. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755; People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). The jury's resolution of conflicts in the evidence will not be lightly overturned on appeal (cf., People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88), and minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses do not render their testimony incredible as a matter of law (People v. Washington, 126 A.D.2d 765). Moreover, the jury was not required to credit the defendant's testimony that he owned the property identified by witnesses as the proceeds of the crimes. 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). We therefore decline to interfere with the jury's resolution of the factual issues. Mollen, P.J., Kooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.