Opinion
December 15, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant raises numerous issues, many of which we considered and ruled upon on the appeal of his codefendant Paul Ford (see, People v. Ford, 106 A.D.2d 399). We adhere to our determination therein.
The additional errors claimed by the defendant in the trial court's charge to the jury and the instances of alleged misconduct engaged in by the prosecutor during summation are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, lack merit (see, People v. Ingram, 67 N.Y.2d 897, 899; People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 832; People v. Green, 50 N.Y.2d 891, 893; People v Martinez, 118 A.D.2d 661, 662).
The defendant's challenge to the denial of his suppression motion turns on an issue of credibility which is primarily for the determination of the hearing court (see, People v. Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726). The hearing court, which, in its determination, credited the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses, was not clearly erroneous, and therefore, we decline to disturb it (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v. Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561; People v. Armstead, supra).
We further find no abuse of discretion in the sentences imposed by the trial court and decline to substitute our discretion for that of the sentencing court as the defendant's sentence is neither unduly harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and are either without merit or do not require reversal. Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.