People v Bhutta (Mohammed)

[*1] People v Bhutta (Mohammed) 2007 NY Slip Op 52434(U) [18 Misc 3d 128(A)] Decided on December 21, 2007 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 21, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2006-525 Q CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Mohammed A. Bhutta, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William Harrington, J.), rendered January 19, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant did not properly preserve for review the issues raised on appeal relative to guilt (CPL 470.05 [2]; 470.15 [4]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Sutton, 161 AD2d 612 [1990]). In any event, upon a review of the record on appeal, we are of the opinion that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of attempted assault in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00) and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]) beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant's intent to cause physical injury to the complainant can be inferred from defendant's conduct and the surrounding circumstances (People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296 [1977]). When the trial testimony is reviewed with regard thereto, it is apparent that the People established the element of intent.

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 (CPL 470.15 [5]). It is well settled that the credibility of witnesses is a question of fact, and the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, is to be decided by the trier of fact, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The [*2]determination of the trier of 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]).

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 21, 2007