| People v Wilson |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02187 [49 AD3d 673] |
| March 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v HarryWilson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy,and Judith C. Aarons of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.),rendered September 7, 2005, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, ofthat branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention in his supplemental pro se brief, the testimonypresented at the pretrial hearing established that his identification by witness Anthony Watts wasmerely confirmatory, and that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppressWatts's identification testimony was thus properly denied (see People v Garner, 27 AD3d 764 [2006]; People vJenkins, 230 AD2d 806, 807 [1996]; cf. People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 [1992]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his intent toinflict serious physical injury upon the victim is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]; People v Gray, 86NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legallysufficient to establish that the defendant intended to cause serious physical injury to the victimand caused the victim's death (see Penal Law § 10.00 [10]; § 125.20 [1]; People v Bisono, 37 AD3d 844[2007]; People v Love, 37 AD3d618, 619 [2007]; People v Gill,20 AD3d 434, [*2]434-435 [2005]). Moreover, resolution ofissues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard thewitnesses, 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 denied542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant contends that the People's summation remarks constituted reversible error.However, the comments alleged to be inflammatory and prejudicial were either fair comment onthe evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]), responsive to arguments andtheories presented in the defense summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396[1981]), or harmless error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975];People v Hill, 286 AD2d 777, 778 [2001]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are withoutmerit. Fisher, J.P., Miller, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.