Opinion
September 14, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, 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. 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 Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84). Its determination is to be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless it is 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).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's refusal to give an expanded identification charge was not error. The trial court delivered extensive instructions to the jury emphasizing the presumption of innocence, the prosecution's burden to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to each and every element of the crimes charged, the general factors relevant to an evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, the prosecution's burden to prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as the general factors relevant to an evaluation of the witnesses' accuracy of their observations (see, People v Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; People v Sorrentino, 138 A.D.2d 760; People v Smith, 100 A.D.2d 857, 858).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.