Case ID: ad3d_8/html/0496-01.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 Brian Gillette, Appellant.
    [778 NYS2d 317]
   Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blackburne, J.), rendered November 15, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence of identification was legally insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt (see Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307 [1979]; People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273 [1983]). Moreover, 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 defendant contends that the victim’s identification of him was unreliable. However, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to 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 should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86 [1974]). Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Skelos, JJ., concur.