Opinion
1998-10814
Submitted November 8, 2002.
December 9, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered November 4, 1998, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Barry Gene Rhodes, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ronald J. Aiello of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Clifford Chance Rogers and Wells, LLP [Theresa Schiller] of counsel), for respondent (one brief filed).
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly admitted evidence of an uncharged crime committed by the defendant since it completed the narrative of the events culminating in the defendant's arrest (see People v. Samlal, 292 A.D.2d 400; People v. Herrera, 287 A.D.2d 579, cf. People v. King, 191 A.D.2d 513, 514). Moreover, any prejudicial effect caused by the admission of the evidence was minimized because the court, sitting as the trier of fact, is presumed capable of disregarding prejudicial aspects of the evidence (see People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 406; People v. Tong Khuu, 293 A.D.2d 424, 425, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 714; People v. Douglas, 284 A.D.2d 277; People v. Molloy, 282 A.D.2d 311; People v. Martinez, 278 A.D.2d 146).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of the crimes of which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt is without merit. 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, 94). Its determination should be given great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). 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).
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, CRANE and MASTRO, JJ., concur.