Opinion
June 15, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The showup identification of the defendant, which took place in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime, was proper (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Thomas, 244 A.D.2d 585; People v. Rosa, 231 A.D.2d 534; People v. Falcon, 228 A.D.2d 517).
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, 94; People v. Scott, 168 A.D.2d 523). Its determination should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (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 (see, CPL 470.15; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.