Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858). 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. While the defendant bases his arguments largely on the credibility of the eyewitness to the crime, it is well settled that issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.