Opinion
August 22, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence, in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is 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 the evidence presented, are primarily issues 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 of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15; see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People's failure to provide him with a handwritten draft of a typewritten statement that the complainant presented to the police does not constitute a Rosario violation. The complainant testified that she had destroyed and discarded her handwritten draft prior to contacting the police concerning the incidents in question. Since the handwritten draft was not made at the direction of the police and since it was never in the possession of or under the control of the People, it does not constitute Rosario material (see, People v. Bailey, 73 N.Y.2d 812; People v. Reedy, 70 N.Y.2d 826, 827; see, e.g., People v. Johnson, 195 A.D.2d 481, 482; Matter of Michael K., 168 A.D.2d 621).
The defendant's sentence is not excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find that it is without merit. Bracken, J.P., Miller, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.