People v. Prewitt

• Decision Date: 15 May 1989
• Citation: 541 N.Y.S.2d 486,150 A.D.2d 618
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Dennis PREWITT, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 486

541 N.Y.S.2d 486

150 A.D.2d 618

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Dennis PREWITT, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

May 15, 1989.

Stephen J. Pittari, White Plains (Jacqueline F. Oliva, of counsel), for appellant.

Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Joseph W. Sands and Richard E. Weill, of counsel), for respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, KUNZEMAN and KOOPER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), rendered May 7, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the People (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 the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant had the opportunity to observe the defendant at close range under a street lamp during the robbery and was able to recognize him spontaneously two weeks later. The fact that his identification was not corroborated by other witnesses does not mean that it did not constitute legally sufficient evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Danza, 127 A.D.2d 781, 512 N.Y.S.2d 175).

It is obvious that the jury believed the complainant, despite minor inconsistencies in his testimony (see, People v. Schreiber, 139 A.D.2d 608, 526 N.Y.S.2d 1010). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard 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].

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress...