| People v Abon |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 07066 [132 AD3d 1235] |
| October 2, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJonoc Abon, Also Known as Jonol Abon, Appellant. |
Charles T. Noce, Conflict Defender, Rochester (Kathleen P. Reardon of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Leah R. Mervine of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi, J.), renderedDecember 17, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robberyin the second degree (two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of twocounts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]; [2] [b]),defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence andthe verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence because, inter alia, the prosecution'switnesses were not credible and the evidence does not establish that he participated in thecrime. Defendant failed to preserve his sufficiency challenge for our review "inasmuch ashis motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specifically directed at the same allegedshortcoming[s] in the evidence raised on appeal" (People v Brown, 96 AD3d 1561, 1562 [2012], lvdenied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generallyPeople v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]).
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the two counts of robbery ascharged to the jury (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's contention that theverdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley,69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). With respect to the credibility of the witnesses, we note thattheir testimony "was not so inconsistent or unbelievable as to render it incredible as amatter of law" (People vBlack, 38 AD3d 1283, 1285 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 982 [2007])."[R]esolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidencepresented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury" (People v Witherspoon, 66AD3d 1456, 1457 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 942 [2010] [internal quotationmarks omitted]), and we see no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinationsin this case.
We reject defendant's further contention that County Court erred in denying hisrequest for an expanded identification charge. "It cannot be said that this case involved a'close question of identity' " (People v Perez, 77 NY2d 928, 929 [1991]),and defendant did not present an alibi defense (see People v Singleton, 286AD2d 877, 877 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 658 [2001]). Indeed, we note thatfour eyewitnesses identified defendant as the perpetrator, and they had severalopportunities to observe defendant at close range under good lighting conditions. Inaddition, one of the witnesses had met defendant before, and defendant and codefendantinitially conversed at length with another witness during the drug sale that immediatelypreceded this incident. "In any event, the court properly charged the jury that the Peoplewere required to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, includingthat the defendant is the person who committed the crime" (People v Willis, 79 AD3d1739, 1741 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 864 [2011] [internal quotation marks[*2]omitted]; see generally People v Whalen, 59NY2d 273, 279 [1983]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Peradotto andCarni, JJ.