People v. Garay
| Decision Date | 23 July 1990 |
| Citation | 163 A.D.2d 582,558 N.Y.S.2d 634 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Hector GARAY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Allen E. Burns, New York City, for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Ernest Burstein, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BROWN, J.P., and KOOPER, EIBER and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered December 21, 1988, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, was legally sufficient to establish his guilt (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932). Although the defendant attacks the credibility of the complaining witness and claims that the jury should have credited his alibi defense, it is well-settled that 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, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94, 68 N.E. 112). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL § 470.15[5].
The defendant also challenges the propriety of several of the trial court's instructions. Initially, we note that all of the defendant's claims in this regard are unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to register objections to those portions of the charge at the time of trial (see, CPL § 470.05[2]; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9). In any event, we have examined the substance of the trial court's instructions and conclude that reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted (see, People v. Lawrence, 143 A.D.2d 1045, 533 N.Y.S.2d 899; People v. Davis, 140 A.D.2d 618, 528 N.Y.S.2d 1000; People v. Azzara, 138 A.D.2d 495, 525 N.Y.S.2d 890).
The defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's summation is similarly unpreserved for appellate review and,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neftali D., Matter of
...are questions to be determined by the fact finder, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see, People v. Garay, 163 A.D.2d 582, 558 N.Y.S.2d 634). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record......
-
People v. Obondo
...to take an exception to the court's rulings, ask for curative instructions or move for a mistrial (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Garay, 163 A.D.2d 582, 558 N.Y.S.2d 634; People v. Wilson, 162 A.D.2d 747, 557 N.Y.S.2d 429; People v. Aschheim, 119 A.D.2d 757, 501 N.Y.S.2d 401), and we decline......
- People v. Gonzalez
-
Jeffrey V., Matter of
...presented, are questions to be determined by the fact-finder, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witness (see, People v. Garay, 163 A.D.2d 582, 558 N.Y.S.2d 634). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by t......