Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bryant McCray, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1995-03-06
Citations: 213 A.D.2d 428
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bryant McCray, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 213
Pages: 428–429

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bryant McCray, Appellant.
[624 NYS2d 882]

Opinion:
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered October 20, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and statements made by him to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded 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). Its determination is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).
The initial stop of the defendant by police officers was properly effected as it was based on a reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed a crime (see, CPL 140.50 [1]; People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181). The showup identification, which took place in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime was also proper (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541). The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J. P., O'Brien, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.