Opinion
2002-764 K CR.
Decided December 12, 2003.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Criminal Court, Kings County (D. Chun, J.), rendered April 18, 2002, convicting him, after a trial, of petit larceny and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.
PRESENT: ARONIN, J.P., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ.
Evidence is legally sufficient if " any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt" ( Jackson v. Virginia, 443 US 307, 319 [emphasis in original]. "A person is guilty of petit larceny when he steals property" (Penal Law § 125.25). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the people ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), the evidence adduced at trial could lead a rational trier of fact to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the proof and burden requirements for every element of this offense was met.
Moreover, 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 credibility of witnesses is a question of fact, and the trier of the fact may choose to believe some, but not all, of a witness' testimony ( see People v. Dlugash, 41 NY2d 725, 736. The resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, is to be decided by the trier of the fact, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses ( see People v. Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). The determination of the trier of the fact should be accorded great weight on appeal, and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see People v. Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88).
Defendant's remaining contentions lack merit or are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Ray, 65 NY2d 282; People v. France, 265 AD2d 424; People v. Chedick, 246 AD2d 551; People v. Ouinto, 245 AD2d 121; People v. Wady, 220 AD2d 631).