People v. Farrington

• Decision Date: 11 March 1996
• Citation: 225 A.D.2d 633,639 N.Y.S.2d 436
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Michael FARRINGTON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 436

639 N.Y.S.2d 436

225 A.D.2d 633

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Michael FARRINGTON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

March 11, 1996.

Domenick J. Porco, Scarsdale, for appellant.

Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney, White Plains (Robert K. Sauer and Richard E. Weill, of counsel), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and JOY, HART and FLORIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), rendered March 26, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the second degree, attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) by permission, from an order of the same court (Lange, J.), dated November 25, 1994, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

ORDERED that the judgment and order are affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury and its determination should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5] ).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the crime of attempted robbery in the first degree is a legally cognizable crime (see, Penal Law §§ 110.00; 160.15[1]; People v. Miller, 87 N.Y.2d 211, 638 N.Y.S.2d 577, 661 N.E.2d 1358).

The defendant also failed to demonstrate that there was ineffective assistance of counsel since "the evidence, the law, and the circumstances * * * viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation" (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). Counsel's failure to utilize at trial a videotape of a police interview of one of the co-perpetrators was a trial tactic and did not render...