Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the detective who conducted the lineup procedure was improperly permitted to inferentially bolster the identification testimony of the complaining witness (see, People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471; People v Bryan, 179 A.D.2d 667; People v Veal, 158 A.D.2d 633). However, this claim has not been preserved for appellate review, because no objection was raised to the allegedly improper testimony (see, CPL 470.05; People v Washington, 176 A.D.2d 769). In any event, any error in this regard which may have occurred is rendered harmless by the strength of the complainant's identification testimony, which constituted overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and precluded any significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant in the absence of the error (see, People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969; People v Bryan, supra; People v Washington, supra; People v Ray, 127 A.D.2d 859).
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 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 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 is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.