PEOPLE v. MAYS (2008)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered August 25, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the second degree, and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the factfinder, 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, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

 The defendant's contention that CPL 270.10 is unconstitutional is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ).   Moreover, the defendant's contention is not properly before this Court since he failed to notify the Attorney General that he was challenging the constitutionality of a state statute (see CPLR 1012[b][1], [3];  People v. Whitehead, 46 A.D.3d 715, 716, 848 N.Y.S.2d 657).

The defendant's contention that the trial court was required to formally declare or certify certain witnesses as experts is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Wagner, 27 A.D.3d 671, 672, 811 N.Y.S.2d 125;  People v. Gordon, 202 A.D.2d 166, 167, 608 N.Y.S.2d 192).

The defendant was afforded the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584).

The defendant's contention, raised in point one of his brief, regarding the untimely disclosure of certain Rosario material (see People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, cert. denied 368 U.S. 866, 82 S.Ct. 117, 7 L.Ed.2d 64), is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.   The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.