Opinion
March 23, 1998
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to show causation is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). 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 (see, People v. Roe, 74 N.Y.2d 20; Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270; People v. Stewart, 240 A.D.2d 960). 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 trial court acted within its discretion in charging the jury on intoxication (see, People v. Roe, 74 N.Y.2d 20, supra; People v. Le Grand, 61 A.D.2d 815).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal.
O'Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.