Opinion
October 21, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The court had ample basis upon which to credit the victim's inculpation of defendant in the form of an excited utterance at the scene, while discrediting the victim's highly suspect and thoroughly impeached efforts, as a defense witness, to exculpate defendant. Likewise, the court properly rejected defendant's purported alibi.
The victim's excited utterance, made under the stress of nervous excitement resulting from his wounds, was properly admitted. The declarant was a participant in the events, clearly speaking from his personal observations ( see, People v. Caviness, 38 N.Y.2d 227, 231).
The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined defendant's request to present certain expert testimony, since the evaluation of the victim's ability to identify his assailant in the circumstances of this case did not require any specialized knowledge beyond the ken of the trier of fact ( see, People v Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430), which, in this nonjury trial, was the court itself
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.