Opinion
69 KA 11-00349.
02-05-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David J. YAW, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester, Trevett Cristo Salzer & Andolina, P.C. (Eric M. Dolan of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester, Trevett Cristo Salzer & Andolina, P.C. (Eric M. Dolan of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of Counsel), for Respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime 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 generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). It is well settled that “[g]reat deference is to be accorded to the fact[ ]finder's resolution of credibility issues based upon its superior vantage point and its opportunity to view witnesses, observe demeanor and hear the testimony” (People v. Aikey, 94 A.D.3d 1485, 1486, 943 N.Y.S.2d 702, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 956, 950 N.Y.S.2d 108, 973 N.E.2d 206 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Gay, 105 A.D.3d 1427, 1428, 963 N.Y.S.2d 898). “[A] jury's verdict is not necessarily against the weight of the evidence merely because it accepts part of a witness's testimony and rejects other parts” (People v. Alteri, 49 A.D.3d 918, 920, 853 N.Y.S.2d 204; see People v. Paulk, 107 A.D.3d 1413, 1414, 967 N.Y.S.2d 310, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1076, 974 N.Y.S.2d 325, 997 N.E.2d 150, reconsideration denied 22 N.Y.3d 1157, 984 N.Y.S.2d 641, 7 N.E.3d 1129). We perceive no reason to disturb the jury's resolution of the credibility issues or the weight that the jury accorded to the evidence (see Gay, 105 A.D.3d at 1428, 963 N.Y.S.2d 898). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh and severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, and SCUDDER, JJ., concur.