Opinion
May 16, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bonnie Wittner, J.).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The resolution of issues of credibility was for the jury to determine ( People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94) and any inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimony were inconsequential and did not render their testimony incredible ( see, People v. Jones, 168 A.D.2d 370, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 907).
Defendant's contention that the trial court erred in refusing to provide a "wholly" circumstantial evidence charge has not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; People v. Monje, 179 A.D.2d 437, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 951) and, in any event, is without merit given that the evidence against defendant was both direct and circumstantial ( supra).
Although defendant maintains that he was deprived of the services of an interpreter during the testimony of two prosecution witnesses, he has failed to rebut the presumption of regularity which attaches to official court proceedings ( see, People v. Glass, 43 N.Y.2d 283). The court clerk's records indicate that an interpreter was, in fact, present at all of the proceedings. We also note that defendant and his attorney were present during the proceedings in question but neither requested an interpreter nor objected to the trial proceeding.
Defense counsel's general objection was insufficient to preserve defendant's current contention that testimony of a prosecution witness with respect to a threat purportedly made by defendant constituted impermissible hearsay and evidence of a prior uncharged crime (CPL 470.05; see, People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879). In any event, the testimony was not hearsay since it was not offered to prove the truth of its contents ( People v Lee, 192 A.D.2d 493, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1075) and, in any event, was an admission ( People v. Harris, 148 A.D.2d 469). Nor was the testimony evidence of an uncharged crime; instead, it was properly admitted to establish defendant's preparation to commit the crime charged and that he had the means to shoot the victim ( see, People v. Grant, 197 A.D.2d 399, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 850).
Defendant's remaining claims are unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.