Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Laurence Gregory, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2004-04-12
Citations: 6 A.D.3d 548
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Laurence Gregory, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 548–548

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Laurence Gregory, Appellant.
[774 NYS2d 399]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered November 2, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh 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 support his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), 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 to the evidence presented, 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 [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, 88 [1974]). 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's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.