People v Bopp (Donald)

[*1] People v Bopp (Donald) 2004 NY Slip Op 51186(U) Decided on October 14, 2004 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 14, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: October 14, 2004 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : McCABE, P.J., RUDOLPH and ANGIOLILLO, JJ.
2003-250 W CR

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

DONALD BOPP, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from judgments of the City Court, City of Yonkers, Westchester County (R. Cerrato, J.), rendered January 13, 2003, convicting him upon a bench trial, of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50 [3]) and, upon his guilty plea, of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26) and imposing sentences.

Judgments of conviction unanimously affirmed.

Defendant contends, as to the criminal contempt conviction, that the People failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish 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 NY 84, 94 [1903]). 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 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilty was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). Finally we note that under the circumstances herein, defendant's plea to harassment in the second degree (Penal Law
§ 240.26) should not be disturbed.
Decision Date: October 14, 2004