Opinion
August 11, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The determination of whether an eyewitness's testimony should be credited, and, if so, what weight it should be accorded, is the traditional and exclusive province of the jury (see, People v Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 47). The character and background of the sole eyewitness in this case were fully developed for the jury's consideration and the record contains sufficient evidence to support the verdict (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there was a reasonable view of the evidence from which the jury could conclude that he intended to cause serious physical injury and not death. Therefore, the trial court was correct in submitting to the jury both manslaughter in the first degree based on an intention to cause serious physical injury, as well as murder in the second degree based on an intention to cause the death of the victim (see, People v Green, 56 N.Y.2d 427, 434).
Although it would have been a better practice to have preserved the tape recordings of the eyewitness's statements taken shortly after the shooting, nevertheless, because the defendant was provided with a transcript of the statements as well as a full opportunity to cross-examine both the eyewitness and the detective who took the statements, the trial court correctly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment (see, People v Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516, 521).
We have examined the defendant's other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved (see, People v Giles, 87 A.D.2d 636) or without merit (see, People v Kurtz, 51 N.Y.2d 380, 385, cert denied 451 U.S. 911; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Gibbons, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.