PEOPLE v. AYALA (2007)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered January 11, 2005, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review, as his general motions to dismiss at the close of the People's case and at the close of all the evidence failed to specify any grounds for dismissal (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19-21, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919;  People v. Thompson, 33 A.D.3d 825, 823 N.Y.S.2d 112;  People v. Eugene, 27 A.D.3d 480, 480, 812 N.Y.S.2d 578).   In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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 identity as one of the burglars beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Charles, 31 A.D.3d 657, 658, 818 N.Y.S.2d 305, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 901, 826 N.Y.S.2d 610, 860 N.E.2d 72;  People v. Stevens, 27 A.D.3d 670, 671, 810 N.Y.S.2d 683;  People v. Rodgers, 6 A.D.3d 464, 465, 774 N.Y.S.2d 349;  People v. Sease, 305 A.D.2d 700, 701, 759 N.Y.S.2d 695).   Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644-645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902;  People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828).   Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, supra ).

 Contrary to the defendant's contention in his supplemental pro se brief, the sentence imposed was not illegal.   The trial evidence established that the crimes involved separate and distinct acts committed against separate victims (see People v. Salcedo, 92 N.Y.2d 1019, 1021, 684 N.Y.S.2d 480, 707 N.E.2d 435;  People v. Ramirez, 89 N.Y.2d 444, 451, 654 N.Y.S.2d 998, 677 N.E.2d 722;  People v. Niles, 258 A.D.2d 478, 479, 685 N.Y.S.2d 104;  cf. Penal Law § 70.25[2];  People v. Davis, 12 A.D.3d 237, 237-238, 784 N.Y.S.2d 536).   Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).