Opinion
March 23, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the County Court erred in its Sandoval ruling by allowing the People to inquire as to the defendant's 1978 robbery conviction. We disagree. Inquiry concerning the defendant's numerous other convictions was prohibited. Furthermore, the prior robbery conviction was not similar to the charge upon which he was being tried. Crimes involving robbery are highly probative of a defendant's willingness to advance his self-interest at the expense of others (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v Williams, 108 A.D.2d 767). The fact that the prior robbery occurred nearly 10 years before the trial did not mandate preclusion of cross-examination with regard to that conviction (People v Dupree, 157 A.D.2d 847).
We also find that an in camera review of the prosecutor's file for Brady material (Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83) was not warranted under the circumstances of this case. Since there was no factual basis for arguing that the prosecutor had improperly denied the existence of exculpatory statements in the file, the trial court was justified in relying upon the prosecutor's representation that no such statements existed (People v Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 149; People v Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 453, cert denied 433 U.S. 914).
The defendant also contends that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony of the police witness who observed the transaction was not credible, and because another witness offered exculpatory testimony. 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. Furthermore, 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 (CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.