Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jerome Piersa, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1993-09-27
Citations: 196 A.D.2d 896
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome Piersa, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 196
Pages: 896–897

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome Piersa, Appellant.
[602 NYS2d 155]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered September 13, 1991, convicting him of assault in the second degree and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to prove he caused physical injury to a police officer (see, Penal Law § 10.00 [9]; § 120.05 [3]). Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Simmons, 196 AD2d 900 [decided herewith]). The People proved that the officer suffered from a sharp burning pain in his knee, that he had difficulty walking, that he missed three days of work, and that he was advised to keep his knee elevated and take medication to relieve his pain, both by the doctor in the hospital emergency room on the date of the incident and by the police surgeon three days later.
The defendant also contends that the officers who testified for the People were not credible and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. However, 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]).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's summation remarks warrant a new trial is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.