Opinion
2001-10156
Submitted November 8, 2002.
December 30, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered October 26, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Sarah J. Berger of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Brian J. Michels of counsel), for respondent.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
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 jury, 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, contrary to the defendant's contention, the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the verdict sheet submitted to the jury did not constitute error. The verdict sheet, which included the offense to be considered and the possible verdicts, was entirely neutral. It complied with CPL 310.20(2) and did not undermine the presumption of innocence (see People v. Phillips, 272 A.D.2d 559, 560; cf. People v. Spivey, 81 N.Y.2d 356, 361; People v. Taylor, 76 N.Y.2d 873, 874; People v. Piazza, 48 N.Y.2d 151, 165; People v. Koschtschuk, 119 A.D.2d 994, 996). There was no risk that the deliberative process or the ultimate determination of guilt was in any way affected by the verdict sheet (see People v. Plummer, 237 A.D.2d 387).
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, CRANE and MASTRO, JJ., concur.