Opinion
April 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At no time during the trial did the defendant raise a claim that the People failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence that the arresting police officer sustained physical injury in the course of his arrest of the defendant (see, Penal Law § 120.05). Therefore, the defendant's present contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620) established that the defendant attempted to prevent his arrest by physically attacking the arresting officer and in the course thereof, caused the officer to suffer substantial pain (see, People v Campbell, 72 N.Y.2d 602; People v Williams, 112 A.D.2d 176). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court did not commit reversible error by denying his application for a justification charge (see, People v England, 191 A.D.2d 706). Even crediting the defendant's testimony that he never heard the plainclothed police officers identify themselves, by the defendant's own account the officers had handcuffs and walkie-talkies visible and the officers testified that their badges were displayed. Accordingly, no reasonable view of the evidence supported the defendant's claim that he was justified to use physical force to repel the attacks of alleged unidentified assailants nor was he authorized to use physical force to resist his arrest (see, Penal Law § 35.27).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.