Opinion
January 14, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (West, 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 defendant contends that the victim's testimony at trial was inconsistent, so that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 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 trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal 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).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. The circumstances of this case, viewed in totality, reveal that the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).
Furthermore, the hearing court properly denied suppression of the victim's identification testimony. The victim knew the defendant, the defendant's family, and even his home address prior to the commission of the crimes. Therefore, the identification procedure using a school yearbook was in the nature of a confirmation and the issue of suggestive police procedure was not relevant (see, People v Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915; People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v Marrero, 167 A.D.2d 559). Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.