Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Collin Woodley, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1991-12-23
Citations: 178 A.D.2d 626
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Collin Woodley, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 178
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Collin Woodley, Appellant.

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered August 9, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance 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 prove his identity beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review. Although the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment due to the People's failure to prove a prima facie case, this general motion was not sufficiently specific to preserve his claim with respect to the issue of identity for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Lopez, 175 AD2d 267). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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). 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, 88). 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]).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.