Opinion
Argued June 18, 1999
October 12, 1999
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
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's challenges to certain portions of the prosecutor's summation are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818, 819) or without merit.
The defendant's challenge to the court's charge is also unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Robinson, 88 N.Y.2d 1001, 1001-1002; People v. Jackson, 76 N.Y.2d 908, 909). In any event, the instructions as a whole adequately conveyed the appropriate principles of law ( see, People v. Melendez, 205 A.D.2d 392).
"Mere eligibility for youthful offender status does not mandate youthful offender treatment, and the grant of such a benefit lies wholly within the discretion of the court" ( People v. Vera, 206 A.D.2d 494; see, People v. Barr, 168 A.D.2d 625; People v. Williams, 124 A.D.2d 615). Here, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender status ( see, People v. Vera, supra, People v. Hopkins, 163 A.D.2d 416; People v. Granger, 82 A.D.2d 643).
BRACKEN, J.P., O'BRIEN, FRIEDMANN, and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.