DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and sentencing. Since many of the claimed deficiencies are based on matter dehors the record, they are not reviewable on direct appeal from the judgment ( see People v. Robinson, 122 A.D.2d 173; People v. Wolcott, 111 A.D.2d 943). To the extent that the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel can be reviewed, however, the record reveals that defense counsel's performance met the standard of meaningful representation ( see People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
The defendant's contention that the results of the field sobriety tests should have been suppressed because the arresting officer failed to advise him of his Miranda rights ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) was not preserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise this specific issue at the hearing ( see CPL 470.05). In any event, a temporary roadside detention pursuant to a routine traffic stop is not custodial within the meaning of Miranda ( see People v. Hasenflue, 252 A.D.2d 829; People v. Mathis, 136 A.D.2d 746). Moreover, Miranda warnings are not required before the administration of performance tests ( see People v. Hager, 69 N.Y.2d 141). Suppression of the defendant's statements to the police was properly denied ( see People v. Fiorello, 140 A.D.2d 708).
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 be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). The jury's determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless it is 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).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.