Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05). In by event, 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 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 trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's request to recall the complainant solely to elicit testimony with respect to a collateral matter relevant to the complainant's credibility ( see, People v. Johnson, 158 A.D.2d 621; People v. Mercado 134 A.D.2d 292).
The prosecutor's summation contained improper comments. However, many of those comments were the subject of corrective action by the trial court. Under the circumstances, the prosecutor's comments did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial ( see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).
The defendant received meaningful representation by counsel ( see, People v. Ellis, 81 N.Y.2d 854; People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Joy, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.