Opinion
November 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence seized by the police from his apartment should have been suppressed because the search warrant, which was based upon information obtained by the police from two citizen informants, was invalid. Information provided to the police by an identified citizen is presumed to be reliable (see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 339, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v. Crowder, 198 A.D.2d 369, 370; People v. Reid, 184 A.D.2d 668, 669; People v. Cantre, 95 A.D.2d 522, 525, affd 65 N.Y.2d 790). Here, both citizen informants were identified by name in the police officer's affidavit that was submitted to the court that issued the warrant, and they were not anonymous, paid, or confidential informants.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). It is well-settled that the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as 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 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless it is clearly unsupported by the record (People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the jury's verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Lawrence, J.P., O'Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.