Opinion
July 1, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the proof of identification was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that the undercover officer's identification testimony was legally sufficient to support the verdict. The officer had ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the drug transaction (see, People v Sutton, 161 A.D.2d 612; People v Watson, 111 A.D.2d 419). Furthermore, the minor discrepancies in the testimony of the People's witnesses do not render their testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116; People v Reyes, 118 A.D.2d 666).
Moreover, 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 Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495; People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). The jury's 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 (see, CPL 470.15). Mangano, P.J., Kooper, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.