Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that his conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). 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. Neither the fact that the complaining witnesses themselves had criminal records nor the existence of minor inconsistencies in the testimony renders the evidence legally insufficient (see, People v Titus, 125 A.D.2d 428; People v Peterson, 112 A.D.2d 172; People v Sutton, 108 A.D.2d 942; People v Oquendo, 133 A.D.2d 709). Moreover, the 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; People v Scott, 168 A.D.2d 523). 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 jury's verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
To the limited extent that the issue is preserved for our review, the remarks made by the prosecutor in summation constituted fair comment in response to those made by defense counsel (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399; People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109). Balletta, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.