Court Opinion

ID: 5730128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 16:23:02.829099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:40:52.315186
License: Public Domain

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered September 3, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence 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, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s identity as one of the robbers beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Gonzalez, 3 AD3d 579 [2004]). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the factfinder, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, supra).
*863Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.