Opinion
June 19, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court did not err in denying suppression of an eyewitness's identification of the defendant at the police precinct, as it was not the product of police suggestiveness. Rather, this eyewitness's viewing of the defendant was accidental, and was not the product of questionable police procedures (see, People v. Edwards, 160 A.D.2d 722; People v Hampton, 129 A.D.2d 736; People v. Magsamen, 128 A.D.2d 646; cf., People v. Santiago, 163 A.D.2d 539; People v. Smalls, 112 A.D.2d 173).
The defendant's argument that there was legally insufficient evidence of his identity as the perpetrator is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, 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. 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 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 and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafalo, 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 (see, CPL 470.15).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions in his supplemental pro se brief are either without merit or involve matters outside the record which cannot be considered on direct appeal from the judgment of conviction (see, People v. Colon, 138 A.D.2d 392). Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.