Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Miriam Cyrulnik, J.), rendered May 10, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of driving while intoxicated per se and common law driving while intoxicated.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated (per se) (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]) and driving while intoxicated (common law) (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilty was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). As defendant and his witness gave a different account of the events from that presented by the complaining police officer, the respective testimonies presented an issue of credibility. The resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, is for the trier of fact, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The determination of the trier of fact should be afforded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]). In our view, there is no basis to disturb the judgment of conviction. [*2]

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.

Pesce, P.J., taking no part.
Decision Date: July 08, 2013