Opinion
2005-182 KCR.
Decided May 23, 2006.
Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered on January 12, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted assault in the third degree.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.
PRESENT:: WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we deem it legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of attempted assault in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00) beyond a reasonable doubt.
We are also satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15; People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Three police officers testified, inter alia, that in the vestibule of an apartment building on the subject night, defendant set upon Officer Ramos, punched him and continued fighting with him on the floor. Ramos stated that he sustained a laceration on his head and a slight knee sprain. Defendant offered a contradictory account of the incident testifying, inter alia, to facts indicating that Ramos was the initial aggressor. Weighing "the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" ( People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495), we determine that the verdict of the trier of fact should not be set aside.
Although defendant claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence based on defense testimony that the police had fabricated the attack, the gravamen of his claim is one of credibility. Issues of credibility are to be resolved by the trier of fact, whose determination is "accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" ( People v. Dixson, 21 AD3d 566, 566). Here, the judge, as the trier of fact, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor, was in the best position to assess their credibility ( see People v. Jones, 224 AD2d 719, 720). On this record, we find no basis to disturb the court's determination.
Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.