Opinion
March 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Contrary to the defendant's contention, we do not find that the testimony of the prosecution's key witness was incredible as a matter of law (see, e.g., People v Baxter, 157 A.D.2d 788; People v Henry, 151 A.D.2d 501, 502). 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 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
With respect to defendant's contention that the trial court improperly interfered with the defense counsel's cross-examination of a witness by interjecting questions, we find that under the circumstances the court acted within acceptable limits in an effort to clarify confusing testimony as well as unclear questions posed by the defense counsel, and to facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 55; People v Jamison, 47 N.Y.2d 882, 883-884; People v Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944; People v De Jesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519; People v Cooper, 96 A.D.2d 866).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Harwood and O'Brien, JJ., concur.