Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( cf., People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.
The appellant contends that the complainant's testimony was not credible. However, resolution of issues of credibility and the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented are primarily questions for the trier of fact ( cf., People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( cf., People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( cf., CPL 470.15).
Furthermore, the appellant was not entitled to a missing-witness charge ( see, People v. Kitching, 78 N.Y.2d 532; People v Antoneddy, 226 A.D.2d 549).
Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.