| People v Marajdeen |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00715 [47 AD3d 949] |
| January 29, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ramon Marajdeen, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Camille O'HaraGillespie of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest,J.), rendered June 23, 2005, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the circumstances, the trial court properlypermitted the People to elicit testimony from a detective regarding a statement made by thecomplainant in which he identified "Ramon" as the person who shot him. The record supports thecourt's conclusion that the statement was not made under the impetus of studied reflection, andwas admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People vCaviness, 38 NY2d 227, 231-232 [1975]; People v Hasan, 17 AD3d 482 [2005]; People v Brown,295 AD2d 442 [2002]).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellatereview, since he failed to set forth any specific ground as a basis for dismissal in the trial court(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Lawson, 40 AD3d 657,658 [2007]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues ofcredibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses,and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633, 644-645 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied[*2]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). Santucci, J.P.,Lifson, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.