Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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, supra).
Furthermore, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial based upon the two brief references to his criminal record and prior incarceration made in the testimony adduced at trial ( see People v Ortiz, 54 NY2d 288, 292). Any prejudice to the defendant that might have resulted from such testimony was alleviated by the trial court's prompt curative instructions to the jury ( see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866; People v Smith, 23 AD3d 415; People v Torres, 302 AD2d 411).
The defendant's contention alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit ( see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 151-152).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see Penal Law § 70.04 [b]; People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513, 519).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.