Opinion
July 20, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Schechter, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; Matter of William T., 182 A.D.2d 766), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant's contention that the arresting officer fabricated his testimony and that the appellant's witnesses were more credible is without merit. It is well established that the 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). The determination of the trier of fact should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, Matter of William T., supra; Matter of Judah J., 182 A.D.2d 821). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the circumstances of this case indicate that the arresting officer was "`justified in concluding that [the appellant] was intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk that public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm would occur'" (People v. Delhall, 131 A.D.2d 870; People v. Shapiro, 96 A.D.2d 626, 627; see also, People v. Munafo, 50 N.Y.2d 326, 331). Since the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the appellant for disorderly conduct (see, Penal Law § 240.20; People v. Todaro, 26 N.Y.2d 325; People v. Galpern, 259 N.Y. 279; People v. Brown, 116 A.D.2d 727, 729), the subsequent charge of resisting arrest was valid (see, Matter of Charles M., 143 A.D.2d 96). Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Lawrence and Copertino, JJ., concur.