Opinion
September 18, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the jury should not have believed the testimony of the two victims who identified him because their descriptions of him were conflicting. Resolution of issues of credibility and 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 is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). The record demonstrates that the two victims had sufficient opportunities to observe the defendant on the night of the crime.
The sentence that was imposed is neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances of this case (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Balletta, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.