Opinion
1230 KA 12-02179
11-21-2014
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Travis MARTIN, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau Of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Kristin M. Preve of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (David A. Heraty of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau Of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Kristin M. Preve of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (David A. Heraty of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of criminal trespass in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.15 [1 ] ), defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence based on his assertion that he had permission to enter the victim's apartment. We reject those contentions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926, 620 N.Y.S.2d 811, 644 N.E.2d 1367 ), we conclude that it is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). The victim and her daughter both testified that defendant and the victim had broken up several weeks prior to the incident and that defendant did not have permission to enter the apartment on the date at issue. Further, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable (see Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we conclude that, “[b]ased on the weight of the credible evidence, [Supreme C]ourt ... was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” (id.; see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 642–643, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ). “ ‘Great deference is to be accorded to the [factfinder]'s resolution of credibility issues based upon its superior vantage point and its opportunity to view witnesses, observe demeanor and hear the testimony’ ” (People v. Gritzke, 292 A.D.2d 805, 805–806, 738 N.Y.S.2d 643, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 697, 747 N.Y.S.2d 415, 776 N.E.2d 4 ), and we perceive no reason to disturb the court's credibility determinations.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.