
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Ortiz, Appellant.
    [616 NYS2d 195]
   —Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.), rendered January 12, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence, in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant’s story as to the happening of the robbery was consistent. Minor inconsistencies between his statement to the police and his trial testimony do not make his testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Senior, 203 AD2d 308; People v Stackhouse, 201 AD2d 686; People v White, 192 AD2d 736).

Moreover, 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 Mitchell, 167 AD2d 356; People v Bossett, 157 AD2d 734). 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 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.  