Court Opinion

ID: 6096088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 20:26:45.326931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:53:24.756864
License: Public Domain

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered June 21, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses was so unworthy of belief as to render the evidence legally insufficient to establish his guilt, since he did not specify this ground in his motion to dismiss (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). 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 deter*697mination 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]). 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]). Santucci, J.P., Friedmann, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.