Opinion
October 31, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in denying his motion to suppress the lineup identification is without merit. The fillers in the lineup were "sufficiently similar in appearance to the defendant such that no characteristic or visual clue would have oriented the viewer towards selecting the defendant as a participant in the crime" (People v Mason, 123 A.D.2d 720), and the height discrepancy between the participants was satisfactorily dealt with by having them all remain seated for the lineup. Furthermore, there is no requirement that the defendant be surrounded in a lineup by individuals nearly identical in appearance (see, People v Rodriguez, 124 A.D.2d 611).
Also without merit is the defendant's contention that his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony of the only eyewitness was unreliable and unworthy of belief. 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 considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.