Opinion
February 29, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the People failed to prove that he possessed a dangerous instrument at the time of the robbery (see, Penal Law § 160.15). We disagree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620) we find that this element of the crime was established by legally sufficient evidence. The complainant testified that the defendant placed a razor to his throat during the course of the robbery. While the complainant did not describe the razor in detail, he was able to estimate the length of the blade.
The defendant also contends that the complainant's testimony was not credible. However, 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).
We also note that the prosecutor's comment on summation regarding the defendant's prior felony conviction was improper in light of the court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v Cavallerio, 71 A.D.2d 338). However, in view of the strong evidence of the defendant's guilt, it did not deprive him of a fair trial (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.