From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kuo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 2001
289 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2000-07452

Submitted November 29, 2001.

December 17, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered July 13, 2000, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree and resisting arrest, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Beverly Kalman of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of attempted burglary in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Mitteager, 44 N.Y.2d 927; People v. Wachowicz, 22 N.Y.2d 369; see also, People v. Estrada, 173 A.D.2d 555). The minor inconsistencies in the police officers' testimony did not render their testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v. Cunningham, 269 A.D.2d 603; People v. Harris, 262 A.D.2d 657). Furthermore, those inconsistencies were fully explored at trial, and were matters to be considered by the trier of fact in assessing credibility (see, People v. Pacheco, 267 A.D.2d 335). 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 N.Y. 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 A.D.2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to the charge of attempted burglary in the third degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., SANTUCCI, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Kuo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 2001
289 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Kuo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. SHEWI KUO, a/k/a CHEN TONG, a/k/a TONG…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 17, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
734 N.Y.S.2d 904

Citing Cases

People v. Prince

05; People v. Prahalad, 295 A.D.2d 373). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to…

In the Matter of Benjamin J

In this case, the appellant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the loss of certain Rosario…