Opinion
January 27, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
This case arises out of the robbery of the driver of a livery car by his passenger when the vehicle stopped in a Brooklyn alleyway at the end of their trip. Defendant was arrested without a warrant on the day after the complainant identified him from a photo array. The arresting officer was a detective who knew defendant from a prior arrest and who entered defendant's apartment with his consent. When defendant went into his bedroom to get dressed, the detective followed him and seized a hat lying on the dresser. The hat was introduced into evidence at the trial and was identified by the driver as the one worn by the robber.
As the detective's entry into defendant's apartment was not forcible (cf. Payton v New York, 445 U.S. 573), but voluntarily consented to (see, Schneckloth v Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218), the detective's following defendant into his bedroom after he was lawfully arrested pursuant to CPL 140.10 (1) (b) and seizing evidence in plain view was proper (see, Washington v Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1).
We have reviewed the trial testimony and found that the defendant's proof reflected solely upon the credibility of the witnesses, who testified in detail, subject to extensive cross-examinations. Issues of credibility are primarily for the jury (see, People v Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116, 122) and there was sufficient evidence to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that defendant was guilty of robbery in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620).
We have considered defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Gibbons, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.