Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Gaetan B. Lozito, J.), rendered April 26, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of driving while intoxicated.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]) was not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find it legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt since the
arresting police officer testified that defendant's eyes were bloodshot, the odor of alcoholic beverage emanated from defendant's breath, his speech was slurred, he failed the walk-and-turn field sobriety test administered at the scene of the accident, he refused to take a chemical test and, according to his own testimony at trial, he consumed alcohol several hours before driving his vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [2] [f]; People v Lofrese, 15 Misc 3d 134[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50726[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Moreover, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). The resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence is primarily to be decided by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Its determination is afforded great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the evidence (People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]).

McCabe, J.P., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: March 21, 2008