DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by directing that the sentences imposed for each count of assault in the first degree shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
On November 16, 1996, a bomb exploded in the driveway of the victim's residence, severely and permanently injuring her. The defendant confessed to constructing and placing the bomb.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not in custody when he voluntarily accompanied police personnel to the police station (see People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585 cert denied 400 U.S. 851). Additionally, under the circumstances of this case, the length of the subsequent post-Miranda interview (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) did not render the subsequent statements involuntary (see People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1; People v. Miles, 276 A.D.2d 566). To the extent that the comments of the officers regarding the victim's condition can be viewed as deceptive, they were not so fundamentally unfair as to deprive the defendant of due process (see People v. Tarsia, supra; People v. Bebeck, 258 A.D.2d 660).
The defendant's contention that discrepancies existed between his alleged confession and the evidence at trial, and between the testimony of various witnesses, merely raised credibility issues. 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 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; People v. Crossland, 251 A.D.2d 509; People v. Langley, 232 A.D.2d 427). Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709; see also People v. McCann, 85 N.Y.2d 951; People v. Liberatore, 79 N.Y.2d 208).
However, the County Court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on the three counts of assault, as each count arose from a single act against a single person (see Penal Law § 70.25; People v. Laureano, 87 N.Y.2d 640). The sentence imposed, as modified, was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, SMITH and ADAMS, JJ., concur.