Opinion
October 6, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the intent element of the charge of murder in the second degree ( 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 Hogan, 219 A.D.2d 672; People v. Ruiz, 211 A.D.2d 829). 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).
To the extent that the defendant's claim that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel is based on matters dehors the record, it is not reviewable on direct appeal from the judgment of conviction ( see, People v. Smalls, 236 A.D.2d 491; People v. Neal, 205 A.D.2d 711). To the extent that this argument may be reviewed on direct appeal, it lacks merit ( see, People v Ellis, 81 N.Y.2d 854; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal.
Miller, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.