Opinion
April 25, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see, CPL 470.15), we find that the evidence adduced at trial clearly establishes that the defendant shot the deceased and then threw his body from the car. Although the testimony of the witnesses was inconsistent as to certain details, 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). 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, on remand 48 A.D.2d 906).
The admission into evidence of one page of the decedent's business ledger as a business record was proper and did not violate the defendant's right to confrontation (see, CPLR 4518 [a]; People v. Klein, 105 A.D.2d 805, affd 65 N.Y.2d 613; Matter of Lo Dolce, 16 A.D.2d 827, lv dismissed 12 N.Y.2d 645). Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in permitting two photographs of the crime scene in which the decedent's body also appeared, to be admitted into evidence since they were not presented to inflame but were necessary to clarify the police officer's testimony (see, People v. Bell, 63 N.Y.2d 796; People v Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, cert denied 416 U.S. 905; People v Parsons, 112 A.D.2d 250).
Viewed in their totality, defense counsel's efforts on behalf of his client afforded the defendant meaningful representation (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; People v. Chang, 129 A.D.2d 722, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 644). The trial court's participation in this trial did not amount to persistent and improper interference (cf., People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44), but rather, was necessary to clarify questions for the foreign witnesses (People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.