Opinion
February 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the undercover police officers' station-house viewing of the defendant less than two hours after their initial contact with him at the scene of the drug sale was merely confirmatory. Thus, the defendant's request for a Wade hearing on the issue of the suggestiveness of the station-house showup was properly denied (see, People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921; People v. Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262; see, e.g., People v. Craig, 198 A.D.2d 295; People v. Liddell, 189 A.D.2d 896; People v. Delgado, 186 A.D.2d 579; People v. Johnson, 178 A.D.2d 659; People v. Gonzalez, 174 A.D.2d 690; cf., People v Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445, 452-453; People v. Gordon, 76 N.Y.2d 595).
The defendant's contention that he was unduly prejudiced by the court's Sandoval ruling, which permitted minimal inquiry into, inter alia, the defendant's previous drug-related felony and misdemeanor convictions, is without merit (see, People v Robinson, 203 A.D.2d 491, 493; People v. Monahan, 114 A.D.2d 380; People v. Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, affd 46 N.Y.2d 882). Also without merit is the defendant's contention that the prosecutor violated the Sandoval ruling by questioning him, on cross examination, about the nature of his two prior drug-related felony convictions (see, People v. Crandall, 67 N.Y.2d 111, 119; see, e.g., People v Otote, 203 A.D.2d 488; People v. Julien, 182 A.D.2d 642).
The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, while the defendant and the other defense witness presented a version of the drug sale in which the defendant did not take part, 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 of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490).
The sentence that was imposed is not excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.