People v RICHARD S.

[*1] People v RICHARD S. 2005 NY Slip Op 50065(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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: McCABE, P.J., COVELLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2003-1584 N CR

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

RICHARD S. (ANONYMOUS), Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from judgments of the District Court, Nassau County

(M. Fiechter, J.), rendered on October 28, 2003, adjudicating him a youthful offender based on the underlying charges of reckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.20), moving unsafely from a lane (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 [a]), failure to wear a seatbelt (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c [3]), failure to yield the right of way to an emergency vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1144 [a]), leaving the scene of an accident with property damage (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 [1] [a]) and driving on the shoulder (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1131), and imposing sentences.

Judgments adjudicating defendant a youthful offender unanimously affirmed.

The accusatory instrument charging defendant with reckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.20) alleges that at 11:50 P.M. on August 5, 2002, defendant drove in a "reckless" manner which caused his vehicle to collide with a marked police unit. It alleges further that defendant drove his vehicle onto a "pedestrian, bike/jogging" path at a high rate of speed in an attempt to elude police. In our opinion, said accusatory instrument sufficiently established the elements of reckless endangerment (see People v Macellaro, 131 AD2d 699 [1987]). [*2]

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of all of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolutions 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]). The lower court's determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the evidence (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88
[1974]). We find that the guilty verdict as to each charge was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).
Decision Date: January 26, 2005