_
_
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent
v.
FRANK ARCAROLA, Appellant.
Argued By: Christopher M. Cevasco (counsel for the appellant); Karen Wigle Weiss (counsel for the respondent)
Conviction Affirmed: Louis C. Palella & Howard E. Levitt, JJ. (DiPaola, P.J., taking no part)
DECISION OF THE COURT
<SM-1>
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the District Court, Nassau County (J. Covello, J.), rendered on March 3, 1997 convicting him of scheming to defraud in the second degree (Penal Law § 190.60) and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.
Defendant's contention that the People failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for scheming to defraud in the second degree is without merit. The People established that defendant convinced at least two individuals to give him money based upon his promises to give one individual an automobile engine and a 10% return on an investment to another individual. The inference that the <SM-2> transaction were undertaken with fraudulent intent was supported by the systematic ongoing course of defendant's conduct. Furthermore, defendant admitted that he took money from three individuals and he never refunded their money or delivered what was promised. This is not a case where defendant experienced coincidental misfortunes which undermined an honest business transaction. Defendant's admission to the police that he spent money on "things" and his conflicting testimony at trial that his brother took the money is also probative of defendant's intent.
We are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the credible evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5]). 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 fact finder which saw and heard the witnesses (People v. Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (People v. Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88).
We find the remaining arguments raised by defendant to be without merit.
Palella and Levitt, JJ. concur.
DiPaola, P.J. taking no part.__