Opinion
December 7, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to disprove his agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that there was legally sufficient proof from which the trier of fact could conclude that the defendant acted as a seller of the narcotics as opposed to an agent of the undercover officer ( see, People v. Herring, 83 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Clark, 215 A.D.2d 682; People v. Leybovich, 201 A.D.2d 670). 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 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 was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15; People v. Alvarez, 235 A.D.2d 484).
The defendant's contention that he was convicted of an offense for which he was not indicted is without merit ( see, People v. Rivera, 84 N.Y.2d 766).
Rosenblatt, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.