PEOPLE v. SINGH

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Sean SINGH, a/k/a Sean Williams, Appellant.

Decided: September 23, 2002

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, SANDRA L. TOWNES and BARRY A. COZIER, JJ. Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jack D. Jordan of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Brian K. O'Connor of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giacobbe, J.), rendered September 6, 2000, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919;  People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9).   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 guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   Specifically, the defendant was positively identified by the undercover police officer who purchased the drugs which he was convicted of selling.   In addition, the undercover officer observed the defendant in the middle of the day at close range just two days prior to the sale.   Further, immediately prior to the arrest, the undercover officer observed the defendant getting into the same car that the defendant had driven on the day he sold the drugs to the undercover officer.   The undercover officer's testimony regarding the sale was further corroborated by other members of his field team as well as a police informant.

 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5] ).

Copied to clipboard