Opinion
August 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence adduced at the Wade hearing supports the hearing court's determination that the complainant's identification of the defendant and his codefendant was confirmatory (see, People v. Budhai, 182 A.D.2d 693; People v. Brown, 161 A.D.2d 721; People v. Toussant, 136 A.D.2d 666).
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. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that the defendant and his codefendant intended to kill the complainant (see, People v. Dixon, 174 A.D.2d 689; People v. Perron, 172 A.D.2d 879) and that they were acting in concert when the other victim was killed (see, People v. McLeod, 168 A.D.2d 461). It is well settled that 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 trier-of-fact, 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Double jeopardy did not bar the second trial in this case because the first mistrial was not granted as a result of bad faith on the part of the prosecutor (see, Matter of Roman v Brown, 175 A.D.2d 899; People v. Sorenson, 118 A.D.2d 607).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal. Mangano, P.J., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.