Opinion
1999-09630
Submitted February 19, 2002.
March 18, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered September 27, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (John J. Ribeiro of counsel), for respondent.
Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the robbery beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review, since it was not advanced with specificity on his motion for a trial order of dismissal (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Johnson, 185 A.D.2d 247). Furthermore, the defendant's subsequent motion to set aside the jury verdict was not sufficient to preserve this contention for appellate review (see, People v. Padro, 75 N.Y.2d 820; People v. Adams, 281 A.D.2d 486). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity as the individual who robbed the complainant at gunpoint beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Rivera, 275 A.D.2d 802). The minor inconsistencies between the complainant's trial testimony, his prior statements to the police, and the defendant's actual appearance, were fully explored at trial, and did not render the complainant's testimony incredible or unreliable as a matter of law (see, People v. Lambert, 272 A.D.2d 413, 414; People v. White, 192 A.D.2d 736, 737). 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). 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). 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).
Since the Supreme Court imposed the legally-authorized minimum sentence, there is no basis for the reduction of that sentence (see, CPL 470.15[b]; 470.20[6]).
PRUDENTI, P.J., FEUERSTEIN, LUCIANO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.