Opinion
March 9, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the testimony of the People's main witness lacked credibility since, inter alia, he lied on the stand about his criminal background, and the defendant's four witnesses all testified as to his bad reputation in the community for truthfulness. He argues that since the People's case primarily relied on this witness's testimony, they failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be afforded to the evidence presented, are primarily 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 (see, CPL 470.15).
We find that since the defendant failed to object to the court's alleged excessive interference at trial or to move for a mistrial on this ground, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886; People v Graziano, 151 A.D.2d 775). In any event, examination of the record does not support the defendant's contention that the court improperly interfered with the defense counsel's questioning of the People's main witness (see generally, People v De Jesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519, 523-524). Under the circumstances, we also do not find that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in limiting defense counsel's examination of this witness (see, People v Torres, 155 A.D.2d 491).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, does not warrant reversal. Harwood, J.P., Balletta, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.