Opinion
November 20, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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).
The victim's complaints to her friend and her teacher were sufficiently prompt to allow them to testify as "prompt outcry" witnesses (see generally, People v Kornowski, 178 A.D.2d 984). The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that the court erred in receiving the accompanying details of the alleged acts and in failing to issue limiting instructions (see, CPL 470.05; People v Holzer, 52 N.Y.2d 947). We decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's comments on summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Dordal, 55 N.Y.2d 954) or without merit (see, People v Long, 205 A.D.2d 804; People v Stephens, 161 A.D.2d 740). Balletta, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.