Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there was no Brady violation ( see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83) in the instant case ( see People v LaValle, 3 NY3d 88, 110; People v Cortijo, 70 NY2d 868, 870). Furthermore, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment because of a Rosario violation ( see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286), since there was no showing that the defendant was substantially prejudiced ( see People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940; People v Best, 186 AD2d 141).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of rape in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05). 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. 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). 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).