Opinion
February 8, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt with legally sufficient evidence because the complainant's testimony was incredible. 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. Moreover, resolutions of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, 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 Crim. Proc. [5]).
The defendant's challenge to the validity of his waiver of the right to a jury trial has not been preserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Magnano, 158 A.D.2d 979, affd 77 N.Y.2d 941, cert denied 502 U.S. 864; People v. McKnight, 198 A.D.2d 306). In any event, the written jury waiver form executed by the defendant and his statements on the record indicate that he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to a jury trial ( see, People v. Davis, 49 N.Y.2d 114, 119; People v. Hunter, 237 A.D.2d 304; People v. Soyouzov, 235 A.D.2d 439).
The defendant's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit ( see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708; People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397).
Miller J. P., Ritter, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.