Opinion
December 11, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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. Moreover, 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). 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, who saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Giamari, 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).
The defendant's claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is unavailing. Based on the record before us, the defendant was afforded meaningful representation under the totality of the circumstances then existing (see, People v Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 187).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the court's marshalling of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, this claim is without merit (see, People v Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665, 667; People v Quinones, 184 A.D.2d 535, 536). Here, the court's instructions, read as a whole, were proper and made clear to the jury that the court "had no opinion as to the resolution of the issues of fact in the case and that their recollection of the evidence controlled" (People v Bacchus, 183 A.D.2d 720, 721). Also unpreserved for appellate review is the defendant's challenge to the court's restrictions on cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. In any event, the claim lacks merit. The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting cross-examination "`based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant'" (People v Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 246, quoting Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), and, in any event, are without merit. Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.