From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 9, 2001
287 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

(Ind. No. 10441/98)

Submitted September 13, 2001.

October 9, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered October 20, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jennifer K. Danburg of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jane S. Meyers, and Laurie I. Moroff of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

On October 2, 1998, the defendant pushed his way into the vestibule of a building and robbed the complainant. The defendant's contention that the evidence supporting his conviction was legally insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Wells, 272 A.D.2d 562; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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). 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

The defendant's remaining contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, is without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, McGINITY and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 9, 2001
287 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Lee

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC, RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT LEE, APPELLANT

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

Date published: Oct 9, 2001

Citations

287 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
731 N.Y.S.2d 631

Citing Cases

People v. Lee

June 16, 2003. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…

People v. Lee

September 24, 2002. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…