People v Gay
2013 NY Slip Op 02925 [105 AD3d 1427]
April 26, 2013
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 29, 2013


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vTimothy J. Gay, Appellant.

[*1]Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.

R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Brian D. Dennis of counsel),for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), renderedJune 27, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminalpossession of stolen property in the fifth degree.

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 ofcriminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 165.40),defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. We reject thatcontention. Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to thejury (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that, although a differentverdict would not have been unreasonable, the jury did not fail to give the evidence theweight it should be accorded (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490,495 [1987]). Defendant's accomplice testified that defendant stole an ATM from a bar,and that testimony was corroborated by other witnesses. Defendant contends that thePeople's witnesses lacked credibility, but we give great deference to the factfinder's "'opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor' " (People v Harris, 15 AD3d966, 967 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 831 [2005], citing Bleakley, 69NY2d at 495; see People vSorrentino, 12 AD3d 1197, 1197-1198 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 748[2004]). Indeed, a jury is able to "assess [the] credibility and reliability [of the witnesses]in a manner that is far superior to that of reviewing judges[,] who must rely on theprinted record" (People vLane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]), and we perceive no reason to disturb the jury'scredibility determinations. Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Carni andSconiers, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.