Opinion
December 21, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
An undercover officer testified that he purchased cocaine from the defendant and observed him at arm's length during a transaction that lasted approximately five or six minutes. Another officer testified that he observed the transaction from a parked car 20 to 25 feet away. The defendant's contention that the evidence of his identity as the seller was legally insufficient was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). 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. The dangers of misidentification are greatly reduced when the person who views the suspect is a law enforcement officer who is trained to be both accurate and objective in his observations (see, People v Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262; People v Carolina, 112 A.D.2d 244). The defendant points to inconsistencies regarding the lighting, height of the defendant, and clothes the defendant was wearing at the time of his arrest. 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 is entitled to 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Copertino, JJ., concur.