Opinion
November 2, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to prove her guilt. The crucial question is whether the circumstantial evidence presented to the jury established the defendant's identity as the perpetrator. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that the evidence adduced at the trial is legally sufficient to support the verdict (see, People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428; People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). Further, where, as here, the jury was faced with conflicting evidence, its acceptance of some and rejection of other evidence was entirely proper, whether or not the evidence was direct or circumstantial (see, People v. Ford, supra, at 437; People v. Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196, 201, rearg dismissed 48 N.Y.2d 656). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant also contends that the trial court improperly denied her application to recall two prosecution witnesses. However, since the evidence allegedly sought to be introduced related to a collateral matter, i.e., solely to credibility, the denial of the application did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 288-289; People v. Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 80, cert denied 442 U.S. 910, rearg dismissed 56 N.Y.2d 646).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Brown, J.P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.