| People v Wilson |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03039 [50 AD3d 711] |
| April 1, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Cameron Wilson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J.Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.),rendered July 19, 2005, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession ofa weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that the prosecution failed to present legally sufficient evidenceto disprove his justification defense and to establish the elements of assault in the second degreeand criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt areunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d10, 19 [1995]; People v Flores, 43AD3d 955 [2007]; People vAcquista, 41 AD3d 491, 491-492 [2007]). In any event, viewing the evidence in thelight most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]),it was legally sufficient to disprove the justification defense and establish the defendant's guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt (see People vLeon, 19 AD3d 509, 510 [2005], affd 7 NY3d 109 [2006]; People v Manning, 8 AD3d 298[2004]). Similarly, the defendant's legal challenge to the credibility of the complaining witness isunpersuasive, since the testimony of that witness was not incredible as a matter of law andmerely raised issues for resolution by the jury (see People v Sedney, 6 AD3d 632, 633 [2004]). Moreover,resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which sawand 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 denied542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5]), we are satisfied [*2]that the verdict of guilt was not againstthe weight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that a comment made by the prosecutor during summationrequired the granting of a mistrial is without merit. While the comment was improper (seePeople v Conyers, 52 NY2d 454 [1981]), any potential prejudice which may have resultedwas remedied by the prompt action of the trial court in sustaining the defense counsel's objection,striking the comment, and providing the jury with curative instructions to which the defendantassented (see People v Ferguson, 82 NY2d 837, 838 [1993]; People v Barnes, 80NY2d 867, 868 [1992]; People vHernandez, 11 AD3d 479 [2004]; People v Thomas, 8 AD3d 303 [2004]). Accordingly, the court didnot improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the more drastic relief of a mistrial (seegenerally People v Brown, 264 AD2d 528 [1999], cert denied 531 US 1069 [2001];People v Dutcher, 244 AD2d 499 [1997]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, do not require reversal. Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.