Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621; People v Hunt, 13 AD3d 160, 160-161; People v Petteys, 223 AD2d 992, 993). Resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the trier of fact, 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 Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349; People v Romero, 7 NY3d at 636; People v Hunt, 13 AD3d at 160-161).
To the extent that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel involves matter dehors the record, namely, defense counsel's failure to offer a certain letter for admission into evidence, it may not be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v Gillespie, 36 AD3d 626, 627; People v Jackson, 19 AD3d 614, 615). Otherwise, defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147). Defense counsel prepared and pursued trial strategies and defense theories, presented a clear and cogent summation, and adequately cross-examined the People's witnesses to develop his defense theories. Hindsight does not elevate counsel's unsuccessful trial strategies to ineffective assistance of counsel ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d at 798-799; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d at 146-147).