Opinion
November 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to support his conviction on the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02). An element of this crime is that the defendant be shown to have knowingly possessed "a machine-gun, firearm, rifle or shotgun which has been defaced for the purpose of concealment or prevention of the detection of a crime or misrepresenting the identity of such machine-gun, firearm, rifle or shotgun" (Penal Law § 265.02). The defendant, whose knowing possession of a defaced firearm is beyond question, argues, for the first time on appeal, that the People failed to prove that the defacement was intended to conceal or prevent the detection of a crime or to misrepresent the weapon's identity. This argument is beyond the scope of review as an issue of law ( e.g., People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interests of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Friedmann, JJ., concur.