Case ID: ad3d_1/html/0537-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jamel Prince, Appellant.
    [767 NYS2d 264]
   — Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.), rendered June 6, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People failed to adduce legally sufficient proof that he was the person unlawfully in possession of a loaded revolver, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Prahalad, 295 AD2d 373 [2002]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Shewi Kuo, 289 AD2d 424 [2001]). Although the defendant contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because the testimony of two police officers was implausible, 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 Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). 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 [1974]). 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]). Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ, concur.