Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The primary evidence against the defendant in this case consisted of the identification testimony of the complaining witness and the testimony of two other witnesses who observed a grey Volvo similar to the car owned by the defendant parked near the scene of the crime at the time of its occurrence.
The defendant claims that the jury improperly evaluated this testimony of the prosecution witnesses in finding him guilty of the charges herein. We disagree.
Issues of credibility as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented are primarily questions to be determined by the triers of fact, who saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). The 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
We further conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Brown and Harwood, JJ., concur.