DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of the crimes of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to the accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police were not required to re-administer Miranda warnings ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) 11 ½ hours after first questioning him, as he remained in continuous custody and voluntarily waived his rights. When a person in continuous police custody receives Miranda warnings and voluntarily waives his rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings before later questioning within a reasonable time thereafter ( see People v. Santalis, 302 A.D.2d 614; People v. Holland, 268 A.D.2d 536).
We find no error in the County Court's decision to deny the defendant youthful offender status ( see People v. Jhang, 302 A.D.2d 606; People v. Fields, 287 A.D.2d 577, 578). The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
S. MILLER, J.P., LUCIANO, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.