Opinion
2002-01393.
Decided December 8, 2003.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered January 29, 2002, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, (Tonya Plank of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, (John M. Castellano and William Milaccio of counsel; Jacqueline D. Ganz on the brief), for respondent.
Before: SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Finger, 95 N.Y.2d 894, 895; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19-21). 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 Penal Law § 120.05; People v. Granja, 194 A.D.2d 626, 627; see also Penal Law § 265.01; People v. Perez, 45 N.Y.2d 204, 209), and to disprove the justification defense ( see Penal Law §§ 35.05, 35.10, 35.15; People v. Reed, 40 N.Y.2d 204, 209).
Moreover, although the defendant argues that his witnesses were more plausible than the People's witnesses, and that the testimony of the complaining witness was both implausible and inconsistent with that of the complaining witness's father, these contentions merely involve issues of credibility. 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 finder of fact, who saw and heard the witnesses ( see People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94; People v. Carmody, 213 A.D.2d 720; People v. Hainson, 161 A.D.2d 802; People v. McKenzie, 133 A.D.2d 126). 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).
S. MILLER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.