Opinion
January 22, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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, 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 (see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record reveals that he was not subjected to the kind of repeated questioning that was designed to lower his resistance or undermine his will (see, People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112). Accordingly, the court properly refused to suppress the statement made by the defendant to Officer Stanton which was made some five hours after the initial questioning had stopped and only after Detective Stanton had advised the defendant of his Miranda rights again (see, People v. Perry, 144 A.D.2d 706; People v. McIntyre, 138 A.D.2d 634).
The court also properly refused the defendant's request that sexual misconduct be charged as a lesser included offense of rape in the first degree as there was no reasonable view of the evidence which could have supported a finding that he committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see, People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61; People v. Aglio, 112 A.D.2d 440).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.