| People v Nilsen |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09740 [79 AD3d 1759] |
| December 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick R.Nilsen, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Joseph D. Waldorf of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), renderedMarch 15, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in thesecond degree, sexual abuse in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child (fourcounts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of, inter alia,sexual abuse in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.60 [2]) and four counts ofendangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]), defendant's sole contention is that theverdict is against the weight of the evidence. We reject that contention. We note that the reasonsproffered by defendant concerning the motivations of the three victims to fabricate theiraccusations against him are plausible, and that a different verdict therefore would not have beenunreasonable (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Nevertheless,issues relating to the credibility of witnesses are best resolved by the jury, which is able to seeand hear the witnesses (see generallyPeople v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Ange, 37 AD3d 1143 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d839 [2007]), and it cannot be said in this case that the jury failed to give the evidence the weightit should be accorded (see Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495; People v Kalen, 68 AD3d 1666 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d842 [2010]). Although defendant was acquitted of the only felony offense charged in theindictment, the jury was entitled to reject certain portions of the testimony of the victim who wasthe subject of that offense while crediting other portions (see People v Reed, 40 NY2d204, 208 [1976]; Kalen, 68 AD3d at 1667). Neither the lack of corroboration of thetestimony of the witnesses nor the minor inconsistencies in their testimony that are addressed bydefendant on appeal render their testimony incredible as a matter of law (see People v Smith, 73 AD3d1469 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 778 [2010]). Viewing the evidence in light of theelements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), and uponweighing the conflicting testimony and evaluating the strength of the various conclusions to bedrawn therefrom, we conclude that "the jury was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyonda reasonable doubt" (id. at 348). Present—Centra, J.P., Lindley, Sconiers, Greenand Gorski, JJ.