Opinion
July 8, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence that his conduct occurred under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, because there was no proof that he appreciated the risks attendant to that conduct. We disagree.
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 establish the defendant's guilt. Here, where the defendant struck the 14-year-old victim with an automobile, and then bludgeoned her head and face with a tire-jack with enough force to produce the skull fractures sustained, the defendant created a grave risk of the girl's death and did cause her death under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life (see, Penal Law § 125.25; People v Roe, 74 N.Y.2d 20, 24; People v Register, 60 N.Y.2d 270, 274, cert denied 466 U.S. 953; People v Curry, 158 A.D.2d 466, 467).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.