People v McKinney (David)

[*1] People v McKinney (David) 2005 NY Slip Op 51693(U) [9 Misc 3d 136(A)] Decided on October 20, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 20, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: October 20, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT :PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and GOLIA, JJ.
2004-608 Q CR

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

DAVID McKINNEY, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Joseph A. Zayas, J.), rendered April 1, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's trial motion to dismiss merely alleged a general insufficiency of proof, without reference to any particular evidentiary deficiency. Defendant thereby failed to preserve for appellate review any claim of evidentiary insufficiency (CPL 470.05 [2]; 470.15 [4] [a], [b]; [5]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 62 [2001]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Santos, 86 NY2d 869, 870 [1995]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859 [1987]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250 [1989]).

In any event, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]) and according the evidence every "valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences [that] could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the fact finder" (People v Lynch, 95 NY2d 243, 247 [2000], quoting People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925, 926 [1994]), the convictions are supported by legally sufficient evidence. Further, assuming arguendo that there were certain inconsistencies between the radio description of the perpetrators, the source and reliability of which is unknown, and that of defendant at the moment of his arrest, it cannot be said that the complaining witness' testimony was thereby rendered so "manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory" (People v Hicks, 135 AD2d 651, 651 [1987], quoting People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]), as to require that [*2]this court substitute its fact-finding authority for that of the jury, whose determinations are accorded "[g]reat deference" given their unique opportunity to "view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor" (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).
Decision Date: October 20, 2005