Court Opinion

ID: 5956136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 06:39:06.189686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:47:57.610114
License: Public Domain

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berkowitz, J.), rendered June 3, 1991, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the defendant’s contention that the identification testimony by an eyewitness to the assault should not have been believed by the jury is without merit. It is well settled that resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and *662should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Eiber and Santucci, JJ., concur.