Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the verdict. The minor discrepancies in the testimony of the People's witnesses do not render their testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116). 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 Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495; People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's contention that he was prejudiced by a witness's brief and ambiguous mention of an uncharged crime is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant consented to the curative instructions which were given and requested no further instructions or a mistrial (see, People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953; People v Stevens, 185 A.D.2d 906; People v Perez, 162 A.D.2d 477; People v Guy, 121 A.D.2d 741, 742).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.