Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court correctly declined to provide the jury with a charge regarding the temporary, innocent, and lawful possession of a weapon, as there was no reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant had a legal excuse for possessing the weapon and that the weapon had not been used in a dangerous manner ( see People v Banks, 76 NY2d 799, 801; People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900, 902; People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043, 1044-1045; People v Caldarola, 45 AD3d 600, 600-601; People v Medina, 237 AD2d 382, 382-383).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel withdrew the defense request for a justification charge. Considering the record in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was no reasonable view of the evidence supporting such a charge ( see People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816; People v Harris, 48 AD3d 830; People v Ojar, 38 AD3d 684, 685; People v Pichardo, 168 AD2d 577, 578; People v Douglas, 160 AD2d 1015).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), 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 jury, 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 [2006]; 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 sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are without merit or do not warrant reversal.