PEOPLE v. LAUDERDALE (2004)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of murder in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.27[1][a] [x] ), attempted aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree (§§ 110.00, 130.70 [1] [a] ), and hindering prosecution in the first degree (§ 205.65).   Contrary to defendant's contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence because of alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the People's key eyewitness (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   That witness's testimony was not “manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory” (People v. Black, 226 A.D.2d 1113, 1113, 642 N.Y.S.2d 138, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 1019, 651 N.Y.S.2d 18, 673 N.E.2d 1245 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see also People v. Wallace, 306 A.D.2d 802, 802-803, 760 N.Y.S.2d 702;  People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500), and thus any inconsistencies were properly resolved by County Court in making its credibility determinations (see People v. Horne, 2 A.D.3d 1399, 1400, 768 N.Y.S.2d 880, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 629, 777 N.Y.S.2d 27, 808 N.E.2d 1286;  see also People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 439, 497 N.Y.S.2d 637, 488 N.E.2d 458).   Given the heinous nature of this murder by torture, we decline to exercise our power to modify the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][b] ).

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

MEMORANDUM: