Opinion
February 14, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Curci, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, 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 of burglary in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 381; People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274; People v. Gilligan, 42 N.Y.2d 969; see, e.g., People v. Johnson, 155 A.D.2d 555 ; People v. Rodriquez, 144 A.D.2d 501). As to the alleged inconsistencies in testimony, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded 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 power of factual review, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's contentions with respect to the propriety of the verdict rendered by the jury are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; see, e.g., People v. Quilles, 48 A.D.2d 933) and, in any event, are without merit (see, CPL 310.50; 310.80). Thompson, J.P., O'Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.