Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. As an initial matter, the defendant's argument that the testimony of the People's witnesses was incredible as a matter of law, and therefore that the evidence was legally insufficient, is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant's motion to dismiss was based on a different argument ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Dien, 77 NY2d 885, 886; People v. Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 247). In any event, this was not a case where "all of the evidence of guilt comes from a single prosecution witness who gives irreconcilable testimony pointing both to guilt and innocence . . . [where] the jury is left without basis, other than impermissible speculation, for its determination of either" ( People v. Calabria, 3 NY3d 80, 82 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Rather, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), there existed a "valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial" ( People v. Cahill, 2 NY3d 14, 57, quoting People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).
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; 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, supra).