Opinion
2001-00453.
Decided June 14, 2004.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered January 3, 2001, convicting him of rape in the first degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Steve G. Williams, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Phyllis Mintz of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his Antommarchi rights ( see People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247) were not violated by the court giving the defendant the choice between absenting himself from bench and/or sidebar conferences, or not allowing any prospective jurors to approach the bench during the voire dire. There is no requirement that the court interview any jurors in private or at the sidebar ( see People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 363, 371-376.)
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Williams, 247 A.D.2d 416). 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. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926).
The defendant contends that the prosecution's witnesses should not have been believed by the jury. However, 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 jury, 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).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). The defense counsel presented a reasonable defense, interposed appropriate objections, effectively cross-examined witnesses, and delivered cogent opening and closing statements ( see People v. Mejias, 278 A.D.2d 249).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., ADAMS, COZIER and LIFSON, JJ., concur.