People v Brown (Rodney)

[*1] People v Brown (Rodney) 2005 NY Slip Op 51596(U) [9 Misc 3d 131(A)] Decided on September 30, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 30, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: September 30, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and BELEN, JJ.
2004-579 K CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Rodney Brown, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered April 20, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted petit larceny and attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's contention that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not preserved for appellate review inasmuch as defendant failed to specify this ground in his motion to dismiss (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find 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 the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the lower court, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84 [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 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction should be affirmed.
Decision Date: September 30, 2005