Opinion
2012-11-9
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered July 6, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and operating a motor vehicle without a license. Davison Law Office PLLC, Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Matthew Dunham of Counsel), for Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered July 6, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and operating a motor vehicle without a license.
Davison Law Office PLLC, Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Matthew Dunham of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1] ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). “[R]esolution 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” ( People v. Hernandez, 288 A.D.2d 489, 490, 733 N.Y.S.2d 886,lv. denied97 N.Y.2d 729, 740 N.Y.S.2d 702, 767 N.E.2d 159;see People v. Sorrentino, 12 A.D.3d 1197, 1197–1198, 785 N.Y.S.2d 260,lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 748, 790 N.Y.S.2d 661, 824 N.E.2d 62;People v. Hernandez, 288 A.D.2d 489, 490, 733 N.Y.S.2d 886,lv. denied97 N.Y.2d 729, 740 N.Y.S.2d 702, 767 N.E.2d 159).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.