PEOPLE v. ROACH (1999)

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Sheridan, J.), rendered June 29, 1998, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of rape in the first degree.

 Defendant, having been convicted of rape in the first degree and sentenced to a determinate sentence of 10 years, appeals, contending that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.   We disagree and affirm.   It is axiomatic that in considering defendant's contention, we must view the evidence in a neutral light, make our own determination of the relative probative value of the inferences that may be drawn from the trial testimony and determine if the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should have been accorded, giving due deference to the reasonable inferences that the jury could have drawn therefrom (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Here, the conflicting testimony offered by the victim and defendant presents a classic credibility issue.   Inasmuch as the victim's account of the rape is not contradicted by any compelling evidence offered by defendant (see, People v. Hobot, 200 A.D.2d 586, 594, 606 N.Y.S.2d 277, affd. 84 N.Y.2d 1021, 622 N.Y.S.2d 675, 646 N.E.2d 1102), we surely cannot find that the victim's testimony is “ ‘so unworthy of belief as to be incredible as a matter of law’ ” (People v. Wright, 214 A.D.2d 759, 762, 624 N.Y.S.2d 650, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 805, 632 N.Y.S.2d 519, 656 N.E.2d 618, quoting People v. Carthrens, 171 A.D.2d 387, 392, 577 N.Y.S.2d 249).   Accordingly, we cannot say that the jury, having had the opportunity to view the witnesses, listen to their testimony and observe their demeanor, failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see, People v. Wright, supra, at 761, 624 N.Y.S.2d 650).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

CREW III, J.

MERCURE, J.P., YESAWICH JR. and GRAFFEO, JJ., concur.