Court Opinion

ID: 6018169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 11:32:30.879744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:39.143861
License: Public Domain

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), rendered March 19, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the 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, *731we 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 are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, CPL 670.10, 670.20 [1]; Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678; People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375, 380; People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990, 992). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.