Opinion
March 12, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that his conviction for second degree robbery, based on causing physical injury to a nonparticipant, was against the weight of the evidence, especially in light of the fact that the jury acquitted him of the weapon possession count. We disagree. 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).
Any claim of repugnancy in the verdicts was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985, 987; People v Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745, 746). In any event, provided that the verdict is not repugnant as a matter of law, factual inconsistencies in a verdict do not constitute a ground for reversal (see, People v Montgomery, 116 A.D.2d 669, 670). Here, when "viewed in light of the elements of each crime as charged to the jury" (People v Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 4; People v Ellis, 120 A.D.2d 743), the jury's verdict was not repugnant since the jury could have reasonably concluded that the defendant intended to forcibly steal property without knowingly and intentionally possessing a loaded gun.
The defendant never objected to the court's charge and so his claim that the charge was improper is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Olcan, 143 A.D.2d 369, 373). In any event, the defendant's contentions in this regard are without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Kunzeman and Rubin, JJ., concur.