Opinion
February 20, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see, CPL 300.50; 470.05 [2]; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 859; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the trial court erred in not submitting petit larceny to the jury as a lesser-included offense, and we decline to reach this claim in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention does not require reversal. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.