THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. ORANGE RODGERS DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), arising from allegations that defendant caused burns and other severe injuries to the victim by dousing him with an acidic substance. We affirm.

Defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. At the outset, we conclude that “a different verdict would not have been unreasonable inasmuch as this case rests largely on the jury's credibility findings with respect to the testimony of the victim” (People v Roman, 107 AD3d 1441, 1442 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1045 [2013]; see People v Zeitz, 148 AD3d 1636, 1637 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1089 [2017]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Nevertheless, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), and “affording the requisite ‘great deference to the jury given its opportunity to view the witnesses’ ” (Roman, 107 AD3d at 1442), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). Here, although there were some inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, we conclude that “[t]he victim's testimony was not ‘so inconsistent or unbelievable as to render it incredible as a matter of law’ ” (People v Lewis, 129 AD3d 1546, 1548 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 969 [2015]) and that there is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations in this case (see People v Cross, 174 AD3d 1311, 1314-1315 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 950 [2019]). The victim explained that his recantations prior to trial were the result of threats from members of defendant's family, and the jury was entitled to credit that explanation (see People v Musah, 249 AD3d 475, 476 [1st Dept 2026]; People v Newhall, 206 AD3d 1144, 1148 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 941 [2022]; People v Moyer, 75 AD3d 1004, 1005 [3d Dept 2010]).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that County Court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the proffered testimony of defendant's investigator on a collateral issue (see People v Tillman, 48 AD3d 1106, 1106 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]; see generally People v Aska, 91 NY2d 979, 981 [1998]; People v Daly, 64 NY2d 970, 971 [1985]). Finally, we reject defendant's contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe.

Entered: October 2, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court