People v. Ings

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: THOMPSON
• Citation: People v. Ings, 668 N.Y.S.2d 922, 248 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
• Decision Date: 09 March 1998
• Parties: 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 2036 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jermel INGS, Appellant.

Page 922

668 N.Y.S.2d 922

1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 2036

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jermel INGS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division Second Department.

March 9, 1998.

Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Edward S. Graves, of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (John M. Castellano and Marilyn J. Moriber, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered July 3, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt by legally sufficient evidence because the undercover officer's testimony was so replete with inconsistencies, it was incredible as a matter of law. However, since the defendant failed to advance these claims before the trial court with specificity, they are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9).

In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully sold cocaine to the undercover officer. Moreover, the inconsistencies the defendant points out between the undercover officer's trial testimony and his testimony at earlier hearings, concern issues of credibility and the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented which are primarily questions to be determined by...