Opinion
2019-03265 15356/18
12-15-2021
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Daniel Duncanson, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Sarah B. Cohen of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Jean M. Joyce, and Elise Bonine of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Sarah B. Cohen of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Jean M. Joyce, and Elise Bonine of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Esther M. Morgenstern, J.), rendered September 17, 2018, convicting him of attempted assault in the third degree (two counts), menacing in the third degree (two counts), harassment in the second degree (two counts), attempted endangering the welfare of a child, and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
On January 15, 2018, the defendant struck the complainant, his girlfriend at the time, several times with a metal spoon while she was holding their infant son. This incident caused redness and soreness on the complainant's arm. On March 14, 2018, the defendant struck the complainant on the cheek with a blender blade, causing a gash to her cheek. After a nonjury trial, the defendant was convicted of attempted assault in the third degree (two counts), menacing in the third degree (two counts), harassment in the second degree (two counts), attempted endangering the welfare of a child, and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts). The defendant appeals.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633). "Resolution of issues of credibility, as well the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, [who] saw and heard the witnesses" (People v Fields, 28 A.D.3d 789, 790). "Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" (id. at 790). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the discrepancies in the complainant's testimony were not of such magnitude that her testimony could not be credited; these discrepancies were fully explored at trial and could be considered by the trial court in assessing the complainant's credibility (see People v Esguerra, 178 A.D.3d 722, 725; People v Sam, 164 A.D.3d 1379, 1380; People v Allen, 107 A.D.3d 818, 818-819). Moreover, the complainant's delay in reporting the incidents was adequately explained (see Matter of Donovan C., 176 A.D.3d 469, 470; People v Martinez, 143 A.D.3d 564, 564).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
DILLON, J.P., BARROS, CHRISTOPHER and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.