Opinion
2000-07678.
Decided May 3, 2004.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered August 7, 2000, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree and aggravated harassment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (John M. Dowden of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), for respondent.
Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, BARRY A. COZIER, ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court properly allowed a pre-trial amendment to the indictment to remedy a clerical error. The amendment did not change the theory of the prosecution, and was consistent with the evidence presented to the grand jury ( see People v. Grega, 72 N.Y.2d 489, 499; People v. Teribury, 229 A.D.2d 829; People v. DeSanto, 217 A.D.2d 636; People v. Sage, 204 A.D.2d 746; People v. Johnson, 163 A.D.2d 613; People v. Petterson, 103 A.D.2d 811; People v. Murray, 92 A.D.2d 617; People v. Heaton, 59 A.D.2d 704). In addition, the defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced in any way by the amendment ( see People v. Sage, supra; People v. Hood, 194 A.D.2d 556; People v. Johnson, supra).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction is partially unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), 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 N.Y. 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 A.D.2d 86, 88). 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).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
KRAUSMAN, J.P., LUCIANO, COZIER and SPOLZINO, JJ., concur.