People v DeJesus (Michael)

[*1] People v DeJesus (Michael) 2005 NY Slip Op 51929(U) [10 Misc 3d 129(A)] Decided on November 22, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 22, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: November 22, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2004-438 RO CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Michael DeJesus, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Ramapo, Rockland County (Arnold P. Etelson, J.), rendered February 26, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of leaving the scene of an incident without reporting.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's contention, that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of leaving the scene of an incident without reporting (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 [2]) beyond a reasonable doubt, is unpreserved for appellate review (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 trier of fact, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84 [1903]). The jury's 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]). Moreover, we are of the opinion that the sentence imposed, one year of probation, was neither harsh nor excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction should be affirmed.
Decision Date: November 22, 2005