Court Opinion

ID: 5943902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 05:55:10.736548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:47:21.961150
License: Public Domain

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 *627saw 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.