Opinion
July 6, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Judith B. Sheindlin, J.).
Viewing the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing in a light most favorable to the Presentment Agency and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference ( People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conclusion that the respondent had committed the acts complained of. Testimony established that respondent had stabbed the complainant while an accomplice and fellow gang member had stabbed her friend and then thrown the girls into the East River. Thereafter, when pulled from the water, the respondent and the accomplice repeatedly stabbed complainant in the head with a knife and then punched her in the side of her head. She was then thrown back into the East River, where she remained for approximately two and a half hours until both women were rescued by the police.
Appellant argues that the testimony of the victim was incredible as a matter of law because she was a former gang member, had been convicted of a crime, had a history of alcohol abuse, and was highly intoxicated at the time of the incident. In addition, appellant asserts that the victim's testimony was unbelievable because she initially told the police that her assailants were two Hispanic men, but then told the police four days after the incident that appellant was involved. We reject respondent-appellant's contentions. Resolution of issues of credibility are questions to be determined by the trier of fact, who saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( Matter of Joseph J., 205 A.D.2d 776, 777, citing People v. Garafolo, 44 N.Y.2d 86, 88). The factual findings herein were not "`manifestly erroneous'" or "`plainly unjustified'" ( Matter of Darryl G., 184 A.D.2d 204, 205).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.