Opinion
2005-1918 Q CR.
Decided on January 28, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William M. Harrington, J.), rendered December 2, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted assault in the third degree, attempted menacing in the second degree and harassment in the second degree.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.
PRESENT: WESTON PATTERSON, J.P. and RIOS, J.
Defendant was charged with attempted assault in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00), attempted menacing in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.14) and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26). At trial, complainant, defendant's wife, testified that defendant threatened to "cut [her] up" with a machete knife, and then swung said knife at her. Defendant subsequently punched complainant on her chest and chin. The People also elicited testimony from officers who arrived on the scene after the incident, found a machete knife and later observed swelling to the left side of complainant's face. Defendant offered testimony denying any use of the machete or touching his wife on the subject occasion.
In the absence of a motion to dismiss the information at the close of the evidence, defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 ["an insufficiency argument may not be reviewed unless it has been properly preserved for review during the trial"]; People v Knight , 13 AD3d 650 ). In any event, when the evidence is examined in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), it should be concluded that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if it be asserted that the case was predominantly one of complainant's word against defendant's as to the material events that happened, it has been observed that "while a single, though unimpeached, witness need not be believed, so too is the testimony of a single witness sufficient to support a conviction" ( People v Arroyo, 54 NY2d 567, 578).
We are also satisfied, upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342 ). Although defendant offered testimony calling into question complainant's credibility and the People's version of the incident, we remain unpersuaded by such testimony and inferences that can be drawn therefrom. We note, moreover, that upon our review of the facts, great deference is to be given to the original factfinder's "opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor" ( People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633 , 644, citing People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Weston Patterson, J.P. and Rios, J., concur.