Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by making the terms of imprisonment imposed on the defendant's convictions under counts three and four of the indictment run concurrently to the terms of imprisonment imposed on the defendant's convictions under counts one and two of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
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). 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).
The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.