Opinion
February 10, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's generalized motion to set aside the verdict was insufficient to preserve for appellate review his claim that the proof of identification was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Dien, 77 N.Y.2d 885; People v. Padro, 75 N.Y.2d 820). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that the complainant's identification testimony was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. The complainant had ample opportunity to observe the defendant before and during the incident, and was able to identify him at a subsequent lineup. Furthermore, the minor inconsistencies in the height and weight given in the identification testimony of the complainant and an eyewitness, on one hand, and the defendant's appearance, on the other hand, did not render the identification testimony incredible as a matter of law (People v. Quevedo, 156 A.D.2d 265; People v. Harvey, 175 A.D.2d 138).
The 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 (People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). The jury's determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (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 (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We find no merit to the defendant's remaining contention. Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.