PEOPLE v. CRAWFORD (2007)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered July 21, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.   As an initial matter, the defendant's argument that the testimony of the People's witnesses was incredible as a matter of law, and therefore that the evidence was legally insufficient, is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant's motion to dismiss was based on a different argument (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Dien, 77 N.Y.2d 885, 886, 568 N.Y.S.2d 899, 571 N.E.2d 69;  People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 247, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9).   In any event, this was not a case where “all of the evidence of guilt comes from a single prosecution witness who gives irreconcilable testimony pointing both to guilt and innocence ․ [w]here the jury is left without basis, other than impermissible speculation, for its determination of either” (People v. Calabria, 3 N.Y.3d 80, 82, 783 N.Y.S.2d 321, 816 N.E.2d 1257 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ).   Rather, 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), there existed a “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial” (People v. Cahill, 2 N.Y.3d 14, 57, 777 N.Y.S.2d 332, 809 N.E.2d 561, quoting People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

 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 ).