Opinion
October 19, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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. Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that there was sufficient evidence to establish the "physical injury" element of assault in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 10.00; People v Greene, 70 N.Y.2d 860; People v Rojas, 61 N.Y.2d 726). The defendant further contends that his testimony regarding the incident, in which he maintained that he was acting in self-defense and did not carry a knife, was more believable than that of the complaining witnesses. However, 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). 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). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant further contends that the court erred in denying his request for a mistrial after one of the complainants, in an unresponsive statement to the court during cross-examination, indicated that the defendant had previously threatened her with a knife. Assuming, arguendo, that this evidence was inadmissible under the facts of this case (but see, People v Alvino , 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241-242 ; Fisch, New York Evidence § 210 [2d ed]), any prejudice was alleviated by the trial court's curative instruction (see, People v Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; People v Rodriguez-Alvarez, 156 A.D.2d 733; People v Lee, 118 A.D.2d 593).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.