Opinion
2002-00949
Argued October 21, 2002.
November 25, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered January 3, 2002, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), assault in the second degree (two counts), and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Laurie S. Hershey, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
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 the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15).
The defendant's arguments regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v. Mejias, 296 A.D.2d 583, 584). In any event, the remarks alleged to be inflammatory and prejudicial constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Pretlow, 292 A.D.2d 468), were responsive to arguments presented in the defense counsel's summation (see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396), or were harmless under the circumstances (see People v. Brosnan, 32 N.Y.2d 254, 262). Moreover, the trial court acted promptly to cure any prejudicial effect that may have resulted (see People v. Galloway, supra at 399; People v. Armonte, 287 A.D.2d 645, 646).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.