Opinion
July 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
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. The complainants had ample opportunity to observe the defendant under good lighting conditions, both in a vestibule and the hallway of the building where they were waiting for an elevator, as well as during the robbery itself.
Although the defendant argues that the complainants underwent a harrowing experience which undermined their ability to accurately observe and identify the defendant, resolutions 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention regarding the alleged excessiveness of the sentence, and find it to be without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.