Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (Patrick J. Barton), entered March 17, 2005. The order, following a hearing, declared appellants' dog to be dangerous under section 121 of the Agriculture and Markets Law and, inter alia, ordered said dog confined in a pen, and, when outside the pen, secured on a leash and muzzled.

Order affirmed without costs.

Petitioner instituted this proceeding to have appellants' dog declared dangerous pursuant to section 121 of the Agriculture and Markets Law. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and not disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86 [1974]). At the hearing, the evidence overwhelmingly established that petitioner's infant son was bitten by appellants' dog and that the animal was a dangerous dog (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 121 [2]). Under the circumstances, the trial court's reliance upon the uncertified hospital report to bolster its decision was harmless. In view of the foregoing, the order should be affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., and McCabe, J., concur.

Tanenbaum, J., taking no part. [*2]
Decision Date: June 29, 2006