Court Opinion

ID: 9920205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 23:18:54.043171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:23:06.311276
License: Public Domain

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered May 28, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant argues that the complaining witness’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law. This claim was not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245; People v Fields, 188 AD2d 612). In any event, 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. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily issues 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 should not be disturbed unless clearly unsup*563ported 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).
The defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.