Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove that he violated the conditions of his probation by a preponderance of the evidence is without merit. The hearing court fully credited the probation officer's testimony that the defendant had missed numerous appointments, that he had failed to enter an alcoholism treatment program, and that he had consumed alcohol on at least one occasion. It is well established that 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 finder of fact, 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). Here, the record supports the findings of the hearing court (see, People v. Morillo, 159 A.D.2d 310).
Moreover, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to deny defense counsel's request for an adjournment of the sentencing for an unspecified period of time merely because the defendant wished to accumulate "good time" credit toward some future sentence that might be imposed in a pending, but unrelated, criminal case against him (see, CPL 380.30; People v. Reising, 106 A.D.2d 522).
Finally, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see generally, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80; People v. Notey, 72 A.D.2d 279). Mangano, P.J., Harwood, Balletta and Eiber, JJ., concur.