Opinion
No. 2002-506 K CR.
Decided January 27, 2004.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Criminal Court, Kings County (D.Chun, J.), rendered March 12, 2002, convicting him, after a jury trial, of endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10), menacing in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.15) and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26), and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.
PRESENT: ARONIN, J.P., PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.
Defendant's claim that the evidence was legally insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [23; People v. Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v. Carranza, 306 AD2d 351). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, it is well settled that 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 NY 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 AD2d 86, 88). Therefore, 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).
Defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is primarily based on matter dehors the record which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v. Ault, 308 AD2d 594; People v. Garcia, 303 AD2d 600; People v. Bennett, 284 AD2d 338). To the extent that this contention can be reviewed, the record demonstrates that defendant's counsel, among other things, sought and obtained a suppression hearing, participated in voir dire, delivered a cogent opening statement, effectively cross-examined the People's witnesses and delivered a closing statement which incorporated the testimony adduced at trial.
Moreover, defense counsel's summation raised some of the issues which defendant now raises in his pro se brief. Thus, defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v. Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v. Flores, 84 NY2d 184 [19943; People v. Baldi, 54 NY2d 13).