Opinion
March 9, 1998
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's general motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specific enough to preserve for appellate review his present challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence ( see, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 859; People v. Cannon, 224 A.D.2d 439; People v. Pinder, 199 A.D.2d 544). 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 jury, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84). 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the surreptitiously-recorded statements he made to a police agent. The hearing court correctly found that the defendant had not invoked his right to counsel while he was being questioned by the police more than a year before the statements were made, and that the subject statements were not taken in violation of his right to counsel. The hearing court's finding should be accorded great deference on appeal as it had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses ( see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 588). Accordingly, as the record supports the hearing court's determination, we agree that there was no basis for suppressing the statements.
The trial court's decision denying the defendant's application pursuant to CPL 270.50 to have the jury view certain locations at issue in the trial was not an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, e.g., People v. Young, 225 A.D.2d 1066, 1067; People v. Basora, 151 A.D.2d 588, affd on other grounds 75 N.Y.2d 992; People v. Robinson, 133 A.D.2d 473, 473-474; People v. Hamilton, 112 A.D.2d 951).
The sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 111; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 18), or without merit.
Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.