From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lobo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 2004
6 A.D.3d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-05295.

Decided April 12, 2004.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), rendered May 29, 2002, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Warren S. Landau of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Brodt, and Rosemary Chao of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not preserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Grogan, 192 A.D.2d 719). 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 permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that the defendant attempted to stab one of the complainants with a knife during a barroom fight, and that he was found in possession of that knife ( see People v. Jenkins, 186 A.D.2d 759; People v. Limpert, 186 A.D.2d 1005).

The claimed inconsistencies in the testimony of the eyewitnesses were minor and fully explored at trial ( see People v. Tucker, 298 A.D.2d 415; People v. DuPont, 283 A.D.2d 587). 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 trier of fact, 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, 88). 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).

SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Lobo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 2004
6 A.D.3d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Lobo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. CESAR LOBO, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 12, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
774 N.Y.S.2d 402

Citing Cases

PEOPLE v. LOBO

June 15, 2004. Appeal from the 2d Dept: 6 AD3d 550 (Queens). Application in criminal case for leave to appeal…

People v. Baez

The complainant cleaned and bandaged the injury himself and testified to only limited restrictions. No expert…