Opinion
2007-1748 W CR.
Decided November 20, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Charles D. Woods, J.), dated October 22, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of two counts of harassment in the second degree.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and MOLIA, JJ.
Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26, [3]). Since defendant made only a generalized motion for a trial order of dismissal, and did not alert the trial court as to her specific contentions regarding legal insufficiency, she failed to preserve these contentions for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Santos, 86 NY2d 869, 870; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that the evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of both counts of harassment in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, with respect to defendant's contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, we note that the resolution of issues of credibility, and the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions of fact to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633). The determination of the trier of fact should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see e.g. People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). 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; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, supra; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490).
Defendant's remaining contention is not properly preserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Iannelli, 69 NY2d 684). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Molia, JJ., concur.