Opinion
August 15, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gallagher, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
It is well settled that where conflicting expert testimony exists, the question of sanity is for the trier of fact (see, People v Wood, 12 N.Y.2d 69; People v Budhu, 72 A.D.2d 587). The trier of fact may accept or reject the opinion of an expert witness (see, People v Bell, 64 A.D.2d 785), and, in the absence of a serious flaw in the testimony of the People's expert, the trier of fact's finding of sanity will not be disturbed (see, People v Wood, supra; People v Jandelli, 118 A.D.2d 656; People v Mainville, 59 A.D.2d 809). In the case at bar, no such flaw exists.
Under the circumstances of this case, the People satisfied their burden of establishing the defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Silver, 33 N.Y.2d 475), and the trial court's verdict should not be disturbed. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.