People v Yousef (Ibrahim)

[*1] People v Yousef (Ibrahim) 2008 NY Slip Op 51636(U) [20 Misc 3d 141(A)] Decided on February 26, 2008 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 26, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and GOLIA, JJ
2005-177 K CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Ibrahim Yousef, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Suzanne M. Mondo, J.), rendered December 10, 2004. 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 was found guilty after a bench trial of attempted assault in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00 [1]) and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]) in connection with an accusatory instrument alleging that he punched complainant in the face with his fist causing her nose to bleed, substantial pain, fear of
further physical injury, alarm and annoyance. His contention upon this appeal is that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 493 [1987]).

The critical issue of fact which emerged at the trial was whether on December 1, 2003, defendant punched complainant in the face as she testified, or whether he just retired that night without striking her. The People's position was amply supported not only by complainant's own testimony (see People v Melendez, 272 AD2d 343, 344 [2000]) but also by that of her niece who observed the resultant injuries on her face on December 2, 2003. The People also introduced physical evidence consisting of photographs and tapes containing admissions. Defendant offered evidence which included, inter alia, his own testimony to the effect that the photographs [*2]depicting complainant's injuries had been taken after their 3½ year-old child had hit her mother in the face with a remote control in June 2003.

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]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). 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, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The
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]).

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 26, 2008