Court Opinion

ID: 5937392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 05:32:12.203083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:47:03.564378
License: Public Domain

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered March 17, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt in view of inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses, each of whom was a police officer. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, 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; People v Cade, 167 AD2d 552). 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 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]). Kooper, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.