Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Steven MORRIS, Appellant.

Decided: April 22, 2002

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO and THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ. Herbert Kellner, Smithtown, N.Y., for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Josette Simmons-McGhee of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered October 16, 2000, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth 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 support his convictions is not preserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise that issue with specificity at his trial (see People v. Polk, 284 A.D.2d 416, 728 N.Y.S.2d 171).   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.   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] ).

 The defendant's challenges to certain comments made by the prosecutor during the trial and summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919;  People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 944, 620 N.Y.S.2d 814, 644 N.E.2d 1370;  People v. Mapp, 245 A.D.2d 307, 667 N.Y.S.2d 265).   In any event, the challenged comments made during summation were a fair response to the defense counsel's summation (see People v. Ferrer, 245 A.D.2d 569, 570, 666 N.Y.S.2d 508;  People v. Cox, 161 A.D.2d 724, 725, 555 N.Y.S.2d 862).

Copied to clipboard