Opinion
August 31, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the testimony of the People's main witness was incredible as a matter of law. We disagree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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 inconsistencies cited by the defendant are insufficient to render the witness's testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v. Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755). Furthermore, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded 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). 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). 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).
Additionally, since the defendant failed to specifically request an accomplice instruction or to object to the court's failure to give such a charge, the defendant failed to preserve this claim for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Coico, 176 A.D.2d 339; People v. Ramos, 166 A.D.2d 468; People v Mayo, 136 A.D.2d 748; People v. Shade, 127 A.D.2d 862, 863).
Finally, the defendant's contention that the sentence is excessive is without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.