Opinion
December 12, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Murray, J.).
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to certain inconsistencies in the testimony of the sole eyewitness. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction. The evidence established that the defendant had expressed his intent to kill Mario Hamilton just one-half hour before the eyewitness, with whom the defendant was previously acquainted, observed the defendant shoot Hamilton in broad daylight on a public street. After the shooting, the defendant exited the car in which he was a passenger, examined the body and then rode away. This testimony amply supports the defendant's conviction of murder in the second degree (see, People v Arroyo, 54 N.Y.2d 567, cert denied 456 U.S. 979; People v McCrimmon, 131 A.D.2d 598, lv dismissed 70 N.Y.2d 714).
Also without merit is the defendant's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 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). 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 (CPL 470.15). Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.