Opinion
55 A.D.3d 625 869 N.Y.S.2d 93 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Avraham LEVI, appellant. 2008-07685 Supreme Court of New York, Second Department October 7, 2008
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Mitchell J. Briskey of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Thomas S. Burka of counsel), for respondent.
STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, WILLIAM E. McCARTHY, and ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.), rendered November 10, 2004, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The complainant, who was the defendant's estranged wife, possessed, at different times, two orders of protection against the defendant ordering, inter alia, that he stay away from her and refrain from communicating with her. The complainant testified at trial that, while the first order of protection was in effect, the defendant approached her and threatened to kill her as she was sitting in her van. She further testified that, while the second order of protection was in effect, the defendant called her home telephone and asked to speak with her. Her testimony was corroborated in part by her daughter. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of two counts of criminal contempt in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. Gelfand, 31 A.D.3d 664, 665, 818 N.Y.S.2d 605).
Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the factfinder, who saw and heard the witnesses, and the factfinder's determination should be accorded great deference on appeal ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644-645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902; People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053). Upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d at 644-645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).