Opinion
October 27, 1986
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We have reviewed the record and agree with the hearing court's finding that the defendant was not an "incapacitated person" as that term is defined in CPL 730.10 (1). The defendant's contention that he was denied the opportunity to present independent psychiatric evidence is not supported by the record (see, People v Christopher, 65 N.Y.2d 417).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), the jury could reasonably infer from the complainant's testimony that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse by "forcible compulsion" as that term was previously defined (see, Penal Law former § 130.00 [8], as amended by L 1982, ch 560; L 1983, ch 449; People v Flores, 101 A.D.2d 657; People v Locke, 70 A.D.2d 686). In view of the nature of this crime, the defendant's sentence is not excessive.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Bracken and Kooper, JJ., concur.