PEOPLE v. EVANS (1997)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered August 7, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.   The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The hearing testimony established that the police had reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant.   Police officers discovered the defendant hiding in the closet of an abandoned apartment with two accomplices immediately after a fourth man, identified by the victim as one of the robbers, was caught climbing through the window of an adjoining apartment.   We agree with the hearing court that these facts justified the brief detention of the defendant in order to conduct a showup identification by the victim at the crime scene (see, People v. Troche, 185 A.D.2d 368, 586 N.Y.S.2d 302;  People v. Gordon, 193 A.D.2d 694, 598 N.Y.S.2d 37;  People v. DeJesus, 185 A.D.2d 855, 587 N.Y.S.2d 664).   Contrary to the defendant's contention, the use of handcuffs in transporting him to the patrol car where the victim was waiting did not transform the detention into a full-blown arrest requiring probable cause (see, People v. Allen, 73 N.Y.2d 378, 540 N.Y.S.2d 971, 538 N.E.2d 323;  People v. Carney, 212 A.D.2d 721, 622 N.Y.S.2d 803).  Probable cause to arrest the defendant was established after the victim unequivocally identified him as one of the perpetrators (see, People v. Gonzalez, 138 A.D.2d 622, 526 N.Y.S.2d 208;  People v. Crespo, 70 A.D.2d 661, 417 N.Y.S.2d 19).

 Equally without merit is the defendant's contention that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence due to inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.   The 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, 68 N.E. 112).   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, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500).   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 [5] ).

The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.