| People v Duncanson |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 07011 [200 AD3d 905] |
| December 15, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Daniel Duncanson, Appellant. |
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Sarah B. Cohen of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Jean M. Joyce, and EliseBonine of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part)(Esther M. Morgenstern, J.), rendered September 17, 2018, convicting him of attempted assaultin the third degree (two counts), menacing in the third degree (two counts), harassment in thesecond degree (two counts), attempted endangering the welfare of a child, and attempted criminalpossession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On January 15, 2018, the defendant struck the complainant, his girlfriend at the time, severaltimes with a metal spoon while she was holding their infant son. This incident caused rednessand soreness on the complainant's arm. On March 14, 2018, the defendant struck the complainanton the cheek with a blender blade, causing a gash to her cheek. After a nonjury trial, thedefendant was convicted of attempted assault in the third degree (two counts), menacing in thethird degree (two counts), harassment in the second degree (two counts), attempted endangeringthe welfare of a child, and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (twocounts). The defendant appeals.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, andobserve their demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied thatthe verdicts of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]). "Resolution of issues of credibility, as well the weight to be accorded to the evidencepresented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, [who] saw and heard thewitnesses" (People v Fields, 28AD3d 789, 790 [2006]). "Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal andshould not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" (id. at 790). Contrary tothe defendant's contention, the discrepancies in the complainant's testimony were not of suchmagnitude that her testimony could not be credited; these discrepancies were fully explored attrial and could be considered by the trial court in assessing the complainant's credibility (see People v Esguerra, 178 AD3d722, 725 [2019]; People v Sam, 164 AD3d [*2]1379,1380 [2018]; People v Allen, 107AD3d 818, 818-819 [2013]). Moreover, the complainant's delay in reporting the incidentswas adequately explained (see Matter ofDonovan C., 176 AD3d 469, 470 [2019]; People v Martinez, 143 AD3d 564, 564 [2016]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Dillon, J.P., Barros, Christopher and Zayas, JJ.,concur.