Opinion
January 19, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence as to the charges of criminal possession of stolen property and possession of burglar's tools is, in part, unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contentions, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a 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 with regard to both possession charges. The prosecution clearly established that the defendant, who was in exclusive possession of the stolen vehicle, exercised dominion and control over that vehicle, which had a broken rear window and exposed wires on the steering column; and, that the defendant had in his possession a pair of wire clippers that could have been used to bypass the vehicle's ignition. Furthermore, issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the fact finder who saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). That 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 (CPL 470.15). Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.