| People v Iacono (Kenneth) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 50176(U) [42 Misc 3d 140(A)] |
| Decided on January 31, 2014 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District
(Rhonda E. Fischer, J.), rendered January 20, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant,
after a nonjury trial, of harboring pigeons.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a nonjury trial, of harboring pigeons in violation of Town of North Hempstead Code § 70-203 (F).
To the extent defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of all of the evidence (see CPL 470.05 [2] People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 62 [2001]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of violating Town of North Hempstead Code § 70-203 (F) beyond a reasonable doubt. There was direct evidence that defendant was present at, and had dominion and control over, the area of the premises where more than one dozen pigeons were feeding on the date in question, and circumstantial evidence that defendant fed a large number of pigeons at the premises in question on a regular basis.
Moreover, upon the exercise of this court's factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5] People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]), we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 347 [2006]), we must accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor, and assess their credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The resolution of credibility issues is primarily to be determined by the factfinder. Its determination should be afforded great weight on appeal, and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d at 644-645). On this record, it cannot be said that the District Court's credibility determinations are unsupported by the record.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
LaSalle, J.P., Nicolai and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 31, 2014