Court Opinion

ID: 5967527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 07:23:11.104186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:22.319269
License: Public Domain

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.), rendered September 17, 1991, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence 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. The complainant had ample opportunity to view the defendant during commission of the robbery. Although the defendant contends that the complainant’s identifi*456cation testimony was inconsistent and incredible, 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 NY 84, 94). The jury’s determination is accorded great weight on appeal and should 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 (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).
We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.