Opinion
2000-10094
Submitted March 17, 2003.
April 7, 2003.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered October 24, 2000, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Reyna E. Marder of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, Lauren J. Rocklin, and Jessica L. Melton of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant intended to cause the complainant serious physical injury (see People v. Cobbs, 174 A.D.2d 751; People v. Tatta, 177 A.D.2d 674). Moreover, resolutions 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). Furthermore, any possibly improper motive of the complainant, and any inconsistencies in her testimony, merely created issues of credibility for the trier of fact to determine (see People v. Gantt, 294 A.D.2d 446; People v. Hayden, 221 A.D.2d 367). 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).
Contrary to the defendant's claim in his supplemental pro se brief, the prosecutor did not become an unsworn witness for the People by his argument regarding the complainant's injuries. His remarks were both fair comment on the evidence and made in direct response to the defendant's claims about the significance of the injuries (see People v. Sanchez, 185 A.D.2d 331). Accordingly, the trial court properly permitted them.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
RITTER, J.P., SMITH, KRAUSMAN and RIVERA, JJ., concur.