Opinion
July 7, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the 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 N.Y. 84, 94). 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 A.D.2d 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).
Furthermore, the defendant's request for a missing witness charge, made after both sides rested, was untimely ( see, People v. Patten, 232 A.D.2d 276; People v. Pendleton, 156 A.D.2d 725). In any event, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing on the record that the uncalled witnesses were knowledgeable about a material issue in the case ( see, People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424; People v. Patterson, 237 A.D.2d 384). Moreover, the People demonstrated that the witnesses' whereabouts were unknown and that diligent efforts to locate them were unsuccessful ( see, People v. Gonzalez, supra).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.