PEOPLE v. REED (2005)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a nonjury trial of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2] ) and petit larceny (§ 155.25).   We reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).  “The credibility determinations of [Supreme] Court are entitled to great deference ․, and there is no basis to conclude that the court failed to give the evidence the weight that it should be accorded” (People v. Scott, 289 A.D.2d 974, 975, 735 N.Y.S.2d 442, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 733, 735, 740 N.Y.S.2d 706, 708, 767 N.E.2d 163, 165;  see People v. Woodworth, 8 A.D.3d 1010, 778 N.Y.S.2d 349, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 683, 784 N.Y.S.2d 21, 817 N.E.2d 839).   Defendant further contends that he did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his right to a jury trial because the waiver was based on the court's allegedly erroneous Molineux ruling, which the court subsequently reversed during trial.   Defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v. Williams, 5 A.D.3d 1043, 1044, 773 N.Y.S.2d 696, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 809, 781 N.Y.S.2d 308, 814 N.E.2d 480;  People v. Wegman, 2 A.D.3d 1333, 1334, 769 N.Y.S.2d 682, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 747, 778 N.Y.S.2d 473, 810 N.E.2d 926) and, in any event, it is without merit.   There is no indication that the court's initial Molineux ruling, even if erroneous, caused defendant to waive his right to a jury trial (see generally People v. Miller, 217 A.D.2d 810, 811, 630 N.Y.S.2d 99, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 798, 632 N.Y.S.2d 511, 656 N.E.2d 610).  “Defendant waived his right to a jury trial in open court and in writing in accordance with the requirements of N.Y. Constitution, art. I, § 2 and CPL 320.10(2) ․, and the record establishes that defendant's waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent” (Wegman, 2 A.D.3d at 1334, 769 N.Y.S.2d 682).

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

MEMORANDUM: