PEOPLE v. TOWNSEND (2007)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered August 12, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding defense counsel from eliciting testimony from a defense witness regarding a collateral issue (see People v. Petty, 7 N.Y.3d 277, 286, 819 N.Y.S.2d 684, 852 N.E.2d 1155;  People v. Aska, 91 N.Y.2d 979, 981, 674 N.Y.S.2d 271, 697 N.E.2d 172;  People v. LaPetina, 34 A.D.3d 836, 841-842, 828 N.Y.S.2d 72, affd. 9 N.Y.3d 854, 840 N.Y.S.2d 890, 872 N.E.2d 1196;  People v. Mason, 256 A.D.2d 595, 682 N.Y.S.2d 881).

 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   Resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644-645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902;  People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828).   Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review.