Opinion
March 30, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bourgeois, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's argument that his affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance was established as a matter of law. The assertion of the defense raised an issue of fact. Although the evidence adduced at trial may well have indicated that the defendant met the threshold requirement in that he acted under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance, the fact finder could reasonably have determined that the defendant failed to meet his further burden of showing a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance (see, People v. Casassa, 49 N.Y.2d 668, cert denied 449 U.S. 842). Accordingly, no basis exists for upsetting the fact finder's rejection of the proffered defense (see, People v James, 123 A.D.2d 644; People v. Collins, 123 A.D.2d 778).
The imposed sentence evinces neither an abuse of discretion nor a failure to observe sentencing principles, and does not warrant appellate modification (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 86). Brown, J.P., Niehoff, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.