Opinion
January 23, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove his identity as the perpetrator of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt was not asserted in the trial court in support of his motion to dismiss and, therefore, has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. White, 192 A.D.2d 736). 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 was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant's identity as the person who held a knife to the complainant's chest and, acting in concert with two others, robbed him. The complainant had an opportunity to observe the defendant at close range during the incident, which occurred in daylight on a clear day, and identified him at a subsequent lineup (see, People v. White, supra; People v. Caballero, 177 A.D.2d 496).
The discrepancies between the complainant's prior statements to the police and his trial testimony, his inability to identify the defendant from a photographic array, and the fact that the lineup was conducted two months after the robbery did not render the complainant's testimony incredible as a matter of law, but rather, were matters to be considered by the jury in assessing his credibility (see, People v. White, supra; People v Murchinson, 189 A.D.2d 900; People v. Sommerville, 157 A.D.2d 680). 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. Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. White, supra; People v. Caballero, supra). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's objection to the court's identification charge has not been preserved for appellate review. When the court asked whether there were any requests or exceptions to the charge, the defendant specifically stated that he had none (see, People v McCorkle, 119 A.D.2d 700). In any event, the contention is without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.