Opinion
October 7, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence introduced at the trial was legally insufficient is without merit. 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. The credibility of the People's witnesses, which the defendant attacks, was primarily an issue 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).
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the prosecutor's summation remarks deprived him of a fair trial. The objected-to remarks constituted a fair response to defense counsel's summation in which he attacked the credibility of the prosecution witnesses by suggesting that their testimony was unworthy of belief (People v. Anthony, 24 N.Y.2d 696; People v Shaw, 150 A.D.2d 626; People v. Rawlings, 144 A.D.2d 500). Furthermore, the remarks were proper comment as the issue of credibility was crucial to the trial (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Anthony, supra, at 703; People v. Crawford, 130 A.D.2d 678; People v. Oakley, 114 A.D.2d 473).
The defendant next contends that the court's charge with regard to the credibility of the witnesses was inadequate and erroneous. However, the defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review since he failed to raise an objection at the trial level to the charge as given (People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467; People v. Moley, 168 A.D.2d 462). In any event, the court's overall charge relating to the credibility of the witnesses was proper.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Eiber, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.