Opinion
November 15, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment, entered after a bench trial, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree (Penal Law § 165.50). His conviction stems from the sale of a stolen vehicle to an undercover police officer during a sting-type investigation. Defendant did not dispute that he participated in the sale of a stolen vehicle to the officer, but raised the affirmative defense of entrapment (see, Penal Law § 40.05). The court rejected defendant's claim of entrapment.
Whether a defendant was predisposed to commit an offense or was induced to commit the offense is a question of fact (People v McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, 61, cert denied 446 U.S. 942; People v Butts, 131 A.D.2d 244, 249-250, affd 72 N.Y.2d 746; People v Sundholm, 58 A.D.2d 224). Defendant and the informant gave conflicting accounts on that issue. The issue thus was essentially one of credibility which the court, in this bench trial, determined adversely to defendant. Credibility is best determined by the trier of fact who has the advantage of observing the witnesses and is in a better position to judge veracity than an appellate court (People v Shedrick, 104 A.D.2d 263, 274, affd 66 N.Y.2d 1015, rearg denied 67 N.Y.2d 758; People v Christian, 139 A.D.2d 896). Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude that the trial court properly rejected defendant's claim of entrapment.
We have reviewed the other issues raised by defendant on appeal and find them to be without merit.