Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Bedford, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2002-07-22
Citations: 296 A.D.2d 553
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Bedford, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 296
Pages: 553–553

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Bedford, Appellant.
[745 NYS2d 695]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered April 12, 2000, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he intended to kill the complainant is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Carolan, 265 AD2d 337; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245), as he failed to specifically raise this issue in either of his motions for a trial order of dismissal (see People v Williams, 247 AD2d 416, 417). In any event, 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 (see People v Flores, 284 AD2d 230; People v Corrado, 256 AD2d 586; People v Francis, 209 AD2d 539, 540). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be given great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.