Opinion
Submitted February 15, 2000
March 23, 2000
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered October 29, 1997, convicting her of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Spencer A. Leeds, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Michael Gore, and Brenda R. Hall of counsel), for respondent.
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to certain portions of the prosecutor's summation are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Cuffy, 265 A.D.2d 421 [2d Dept., Oct. 12, 1999]; People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818, 819 ) or without merit.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by admitting into evidence photographs depicting the victim's injuries (see, People v. Mastropietro, 232 A.D.2d 725 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, "[m]ere 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. Cuffy, supra,; People v. Barr, 168 A.D.2d 625 ; People v. Williams, 124 A.D.2d 615 ). Here, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender status (see, People v. Cuffy, supra; People v. Vera, supra;People v. Rivas, 246 A.D.2d 488 ).
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.