Opinion
September 29, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that in light of alleged weaknesses in the prosecution's case, including the alleged inadequacy of the identification testimony provided by an elderly witness, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. However, 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, 94). Its 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 was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
In addition, contrary to the defendant's contention, the "identification process" was not prejudicial. The record indicates that the lineup, conducted several months after the commission of the crime, was not unduly suggestive ( see, People v McClarin, 157 A.D.2d 747).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Thompson, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.