Court Opinion

ID: 5982045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 08:21:29.311587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:29.167744
License: Public Domain

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered April 28, 1992, convicting him *427of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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 to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86). Upon 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]).
In view of his prior criminal record, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.