From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Nunez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 2004
7 A.D.3d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2000-02028.

Decided May 3, 2004.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered February 2, 2000, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Lisa Napoli of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Avemaria Thompson of counsel; Lorrie A. Zino on the brief), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not specify the grounds he now raises in his motion to dismiss at trial ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). 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 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 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).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Nunez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 2004
7 A.D.3d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Nunez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. CARLOS NUNEZ, appellant

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

Date published: May 3, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 590

Citing Cases

Nunez v. Phillips

Petitioner's first claim, that no rational trier of fact could have convicted him based upon the evidence in…