PEOPLE v. CATLIN (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a bench trial, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2] ).   Contrary to the contention of defendant, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence with respect to his intent to commit burglary (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).  “Where, as here, witness credibility is of paramount importance to the determination of guilt or innocence, the appellate court must give ‘ [g]reat deference ․ [to the] fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor’ ” (People v. Harris, 15 A.D.3d 966, 967, 788 N.Y.S.2d 745, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 831, 796 N.Y.S.2d 586, 829 N.E.2d 679, quoting Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   County Court was entitled to credit testimony presented by the People establishing that defendant entered the victim's home without permission (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672;  People v. Coleman, 278 A.D.2d 891, 718 N.Y.S.2d 504, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 798, 726 N.Y.S.2d 376, 750 N.E.2d 78).

 We reject defendant's remaining contention that the court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine a defense witness with respect to a prior incident in which she and defendant were arrested. The record establishes that the witness testified that no one else was involved in the incident, and the prosecutor did not ask her whether defendant was arrested or charged in connection with that incident.   In any event, we conclude that any error in that respect is harmless (see generally People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: