| People v Garcia |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09412 [45 AD3d 860] |
| November 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Danny Garcia, Also Known as Jason Deleon, Also Known as JacobGuereo, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Maria Wager, Richard LongworthHecht, and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (West,J.), rendered December 11, 2002, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, attemptedrape in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, unlawful imprisonmentin the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter tobe determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should beaccorded great deference on appeal (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383,410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual reviewpower (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d at 644-645).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) constituted a provident exercise of its discretion.The fact that [*2]the defendant may have been the only possiblesource of testimony for his defense increased the importance of his credibility and his testimony,and did not mandate a ruling prohibiting inquiry about his prior conduct (see People v Cruz, 21 AD3d 967,968 [2005]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.