Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the People did prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (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. The evidence established that it was the defendant from whom the undercover police officer purchased $20 worth of cocaine (see, People v Keeling, 141 A.D.2d 668; People v Gutierrez, 136 A.D.2d 655; People v Rojas, 121 A.D.2d 315).
Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). The jury's verdict rested primarily upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses who testified at trial. 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 Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless it is clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Almonte, 135 A.D.2d 824; People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Although there were some testimonial inconsistencies, the jury's verdict is adequately supported by the record; it is not against the weight of the evidence, and accordingly it need not be disturbed (see, People v Tugwell, 114 A.D.2d 869).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; see, People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951) or without merit (see, People v Rawlings, 144 A.D.2d 500; People v Crawford, 130 A.D.2d 678). Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.