Opinion
July 5, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's intent to cause the death of the victim (see, People v. Reynolds, 107 A.D.2d 724). Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
In its Sandoval ruling, the court properly weighed the probative value of the defendant's past conviction for a dissimilar crime with the risk of potential prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142; People v Frumerin, 121 A.D.2d 736, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 812).
In this case the defense offered the testimony of two psychiatrists in support of the defense of extreme emotional disturbance. In so doing they referred to certain violent episodes in the defendant's past. Under these circumstances, it was proper for the People's expert, who testified in rebuttal, to refer to the same incidents and to others not objected to by defense counsel.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including those presented in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit (see, People v. Sanchez, 131 A.D.2d 606, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 717; People v. Onofrietti, 109 A.D.2d 896; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Spatt, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.