Opinion · Nylaw New York
PEOPLE v. LIPSON, 165 A.D.2d 836 [2d Dept 1990]
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF N.Y., Respondent, v. WALTER LIPSON,Appellant., 165 A.D.2d 836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 1990)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Nylaw New York
- Jurisdiction
- Nylaw
- Date
- 1990-09-17
- Topic
- general
PEOPLE v. LIPSON, 165 A.D.2d 836 [2d Dept 1990] THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WALTER LIPSON,Appellant.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. September 17, 1990 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Dwyer, J.). Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed PEOPLE v. LIPSON, 165 A.D.2d 836 [2d Dept 1990]. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
PEOPLE v. LIPSON,165 A.D.2d 836[2d Dept 1990]
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WALTER LIPSON,
Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
September 17, 1990
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People(see, People v. Contes,60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction of attempted burglary in the second degree. The defendant was observed attempting to gain entry to the subject premises. When the police apprehended the defendant at the scene he was found in possession of two knives, a screwdriver, a flashlight and a pronged, fork-like object. The arresting officer testified that the recovered implements were consistent with tools used in break-ins. Moreover, when advised of the crime with which he was being charged the defendant responded "You can't lock me up, I didn't get in yet". The totality of evidence permits no reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt(see,e.g., People v. Kitlitz,141 A.D.2d 565;People v. Briggs,111 A.D.2d 340;People v. Eason,111 A.D.2d 829). The jury apparently chose to discount the defendant's explanation for his presence at the premises he attempted to enter, i.e., that he needed to use the bathroom. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to thePage 837evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses(see, People vGaimari,176 N.Y. 84,94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record(see, People v. Garafolo,44 A.D.2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence(see, CPL470.15[5]). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.