Opinion
1999-10578
Argued June 18, 2002.
July 22, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.) rendered October 14, 1999, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Alex Smith, Middletown, N.Y., and Robert N. Isseks, Middletown, N.Y., for appellant (one brief filed), and appellant pro se.
Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (David R. Huey of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review by either the general motion to dismiss (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Wells, 272 A.D.2d 562, People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245), or the posttrial motion to set aside the verdict (see People v. Betts, 292 A.D.2d 539, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 649; People v. Adams, 281 A.D.2d 486, 487). 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 (see People v. Ruiz, 211 A.D.2d 829, 830). 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). 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).
Under the circumstances, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, ADAMS and MASTRO, JJ., concur.