From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Vasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 6, 2001
286 A.D.2d 353 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted June 15, 2001.

August 6, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Perone, J.), rendered June 3, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of the defendant's oral motion, made during the course of a hearing, to suppress physical evidence.

Karen Bosshart, Mt. Kisco, N.Y., for appellant.

Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Lois Cullen Valerio and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Most of the defendant's present arguments regarding the denial of his suppression motion are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, since the record demonstrates that the gun at issue was not seized as a result of any unlawful police action (see, CPL 140.50; People v. Beriguette, 84 N.Y.2d 978; People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49), the hearing court properly refused to suppress it.

The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove his guilt by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Ings, 248 A.D.2d 485). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Veras, 182 A.D.2d 729). 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). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal, and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86). 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).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

S. MILLER, J.P., H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Vasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 6, 2001
286 A.D.2d 353 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Vasquez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. MARC VASQUEZ, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 6, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 353 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
728 N.Y.S.2d 688