People v Rivers (Marvin)

[*1] People v Rivers (Marvin) 2006 NY Slip Op 52214(U) [13 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on October 27, 2006 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 27, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2004-449 K CR.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

Marvin Rivers, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lila Gold, J.), rendered March 16, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 18-20 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of attempted possession of a weapon in the fourth degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). The inconsistencies in the witness' statements were fully explored at trial and were matters to be considered by the trier of fact in assessing credibility (see e.g. People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 393 [2005]). Said inconsistencies did not render the testimony incredible as a matter of law (see People v Lambert, 272 AD2d 413 [2000]). 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, who saw and heard the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The determination of the
trier of fact should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see e.g. People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Defendant's [*2]remaining contentions similarly lack merit.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 27, 2006