Opinion
December 17, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Pano Patsalos, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. We disagree. The complainant, who knew the defendant, testified without equivocation that the defendant raped and robbed her. The complainant's testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence, and by the testimony of several witnesses that the complainant was hysterical after the incident. Moreover, the defendant's alibi was completely rebutted. 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 (see, CPL 470.15).
We also find that the court properly admitted the defendant's statements into evidence (see, People v. McIntyre, 138 A.D.2d 634; People v. Sobolof, 109 A.D.2d 903; People v. Putland, 105 A.D.2d 199; People v. Oates, 104 A.D.2d 907). In addition, we reject the defendant's claim that he was denied the meaningful representation of defense counsel due to misstatements his trial attorney made during his summation (see, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799; People v. Sullivan, 153 A.D.2d 223).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.