Opinion
2007-1792 Q CR.
Decided on July 13, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Mary R. O'Donoghue, J.), rendered October 25, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted promoting prostitution in the fourth degree.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and STEINHARDT, JJ.
Defendant, the manager of a hair salon, was convicted, after a nonjury trial, of attempted promoting prostitution in the fourth degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 230.20) upon proof that she attempted to knowingly advance, or profit from, the prostitution of another female to a male undercover officer. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found all of the elements of attempted promoting prostitution in the fourth degree proven beyond a reasonable doubt ( see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 230.15, 230.20). Although the officer was initially incorrect about the time of the incident and made no identification of the particular section in Queens in which it occurred, he offered consistent and credible testimony showing a violation of the statute ( see Antonucci v Town of Irondequoit, 81 AD2d 743, 744; People v Mejia Real Estate, 176 Misc 2d 316, 321 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1998]; see generally People v Gelman, 31 AD3d 785, 786).
In addition, the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342 , 349; People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633 , 644; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). It is well settled, moreover, that the credibility of witnesses poses questions of fact, and the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, is primarily for the trier of fact, who had the opportunity to "view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor" ( Romero, 7 NY3d at 644, quoting Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). The record before us amply supports the trial court's determination. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Weston and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.