Opinion
2003-00386.
May 16, 2005.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered December 12, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Before: Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 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 NY 84, 94). The jury's determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see People v. Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly instructed the jury on accomplice liability. The court's charge, which included the precise language of Penal Law § 20.00, clearly conveyed to the jury that the defendant had to possess the intent to commit the crime of robbery in the first degree ( see People v. Kaplan, 76 NY2d 140; People v. Accely, 272 AD2d 337; People v. Jordan, 187 AD2d 731; People v. Wise, 135 AD2d 593).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those regarding the prosecutor's summation, are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Brown, 249 AD2d 320), and, in any event, without merit ( see People v. Jones, 294 AD2d 517; People v. Green, 182 AD2d 704; People v. Blackstock, 184 AD2d 775; People v. Johnson, 154 AD2d 618).