Opinion
December 2, 1985
Appeal from the County Court, Rockland County (Miller, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
At the hearing to determine defendant's fitness to proceed to trial, the People were required to prove competency by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence (see, People v Santos, 43 A.D.2d 73). This burden was clearly met through the respective testimony of Dr. Sawi and Dr. Martin, psychiatrists at the facility where defendant was confined for five months prior to the hearing, who had an extensive opportunity to observe defendant in various conditions and whose opinions were therefore of more value than those of defendant's expert witnesses, who concededly had less exposure to defendant's behavior. Moreover, in cases where the hearing court is presented with conflicting evidence of competency, great deference will be accorded its findings (People v Carl, 58 A.D.2d 948, revd on other grounds 46 N.Y.2d 806).
We find that the jury could properly infer from the conflicting evidence at trial that defendant was criminally responsible for his conduct when the crimes in question were committed (see, People v Wood, 12 N.Y.2d 69; People v Buthy, 38 A.D.2d 10). Gibbons, J.P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.