| People v Mays |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06858 [54 AD3d 778] |
| September 9, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v CurtisMays, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Margaret E. Mainusch and Cristin N.Connell of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese,J.), rendered August 25, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, manslaughter inthe second degree, and attempted robbery in the first degree, 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, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant'sguilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily amatter to be determined by the factfinder, which saw and heard the witnesses, and itsdetermination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exerciseof our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guiltwas not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that CPL 270.10 is unconstitutional is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, the defendant's contention is not properly beforethis Court since he failed to notify the Attorney General that he was challenging theconstitutionality of a state statute (see CPLR 1012 [b] [1], [3]; People v Whitehead, 46 AD3d715, 716 [2007]).
The defendant's contention that the trial court was required to formally declare or certifycertain witnesses as experts is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2])and, in any [*2]event, is without merit (see People v Wagner, 27 AD3d671, 672 [2006]; People v Gordon, 202 AD2d 166, 167 [1994]).
The defendant was afforded the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento,91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]).
The defendant's contention, raised in point one of his brief, regarding the untimely disclosureof certain Rosario material (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 [1961], certdenied 368 US 866 [1961]), is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is withoutmerit. The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplementalbrief, are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Fisher, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur.