Opinion
December 4, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deeley, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, "[t]here was a sufficient degree of resemblance between the defendant and the five other participants * * * so as not to render likely that there would be a mistaken identification of the defendant as a result of undue suggestiveness" (People v Thompson, 143 A.D.2d 858; see, People v Jackson, 145 A.D.2d 646; People v Phillips, 145 A.D.2d 656; People v Wiley, 137 A.D.2d 735, 736). In light of the foregoing, the hearing court properly determined that the lineup and the in-court identification of the defendant by the complainant were admissible (see, e.g., People v Phillips, supra).
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. Any alleged inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony with respect to his identification of the defendant and his credibility in general were primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 A.D.2d 84, 94). The alibi testimony presented by the defendant similarly created questions which were primarily to be resolved by the jury (see, People v Gaimari, supra). 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.