PEOPLE v. McCREARY

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Isaac McCREARY, Appellant.

Decided: September 28, 1998

Before MANGANO, P.J., COPERTINO, THOMPSON and McGINITY, JJ. Matthew Muraskin, Hempstead, N.Y. (Kent V. Moston and Judah Serfaty of counsel), for appellant. Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy Smiley and Edward Miller of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.), rendered April 5, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree (three counts), and burglary in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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 guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94, 68 N.E. 112).   Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500).   Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5] ).

 We find no merit to the defendant's claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel.   The record demonstrates that the defendant received meaningful representation from his trial counsel, who presented competent opening and closing statements, vigorously cross-examined the People's witnesses, and made appropriate objections.   Thus, viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances together as of the time of representation, we find that the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 615 N.Y.S.2d 662, 639 N.E.2d 19;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400;  see also, People v. Jiminez, 244 A.D.2d 289, 664 N.Y.S.2d 775;  People v. Aguilar, 224 A.D.2d 704, 639 N.Y.S.2d 75;  People v. DeFina, 213 A.D.2d 665, 624 N.Y.S.2d 236).

The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard