Opinion
May 22, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his identity as the robber beyond a reasonable doubt with regard to the conviction under indictment No. 1389/85. However, viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in a light most favorable to the People (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. The complainant testified that he observed the robber under excellent lighting conditions for about 7 to 10 minutes during the course of the robbery. The robber stood 2 1/2 feet away from the complainant, whose view was not obstructed at any time. Further, the complainant made an unequivocal in-court identification of the defendant as the robber.
We find no merit to the defendant's further contention that because of certain discrepancies between the description of the robber and the defendant's actual physical appearance, the prosecution's witnesses should not have been believed by the jury. 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 (CPL 470.15).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention regarding the excessiveness of the sentences imposed under all the indictments and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.