Opinion
November 10, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that all of the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). 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 ( see, People v. Solorzano, 163 A.D.2d 434). 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 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19-21) or without merit ( see, People v. Justice, 172 A.D.2d 851, 852; People v. Sparman, 202 A.D.2d 452, 453).
Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.