Opinion
October 23, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved 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. Loughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 804; People v. Johnson, 70 N.Y.2d 819; People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1). However, 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). 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). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant contends that his acquittal of the robbery and burglary charges negated his alleged intention to use or threaten to use unlawfully the knife which was recovered from his person, and that the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree was thereby repugnant. We disagree. The charges of which the defendant was acquitted, robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and burglary in the first degree, each have elements not contained in the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (see, Penal Law § 160.15; § 160.10 [1]; § 140.30 [3]; § 265.01 [2]). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.