Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of manslaughter in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the factfinder, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410, cert denied 542 US 946). Upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The trial court properly admitted into evidence the prior testimony of the defendant's accomplice. The prosecution established that it exercised due diligence in attempting to locate the witness ( see CPL 670.10; People v Thomas, 219 AD2d 549, 549-550; People v Tumerman, 133 AD2d 714, 715). Moreover, the admission of the prior testimony did not violate the defendant's right to confrontation as the defendant had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness at his two prior trials ( see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 68).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.