People v GREER (RALPH)

[*1] People v GREER (RALPH) 2005 NY Slip Op 50062(U) Decided on January 26, 2005 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 26, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.
2003-324 Q CR

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

RALPH GREER, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Criminal Court, Queens County (D. Stevens-Modica, J.), rendered February 4, 2003, convicting him, after a nonjury trial, of two counts of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 215.50 [3]) and one count of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]), and imposing sentence.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

Although defendant failed to preserve by specific objection at trial his present challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Mora, 207 AD2d 914 [1994]; CPL 470.05 [2]) we note, in any event, that the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), was sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, 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 [5]). The credibility of witnesses is a question of fact, and the trier of the fact may choose to believe some, but not all, of a witness' testimony (see People v Dlugash, 41 NY2d 725, 736 [1977]). The resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, is primarily to be decided by the trier of the fact, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The determination of the trier of the fact 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]). We find no merit to defendant's [*2]contention that complainant's testimony was incredible as a matter of law.
Decision Date: January 26, 2005