Opinion
December 31, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence in this case is sufficient to sustain the conviction, inasmuch as "`any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime[s] beyond a reasonable doubt'" (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621; quoting from Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319; see also, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). The evidence supports the jury's rejection of the defense of justification (see, People v Maldonado, 121 A.D.2d 400).
Further, in view of the nature of the offense, we cannot say that Criminal Term's denial of youthful offender treatment constituted an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Selg, 110 A.D.2d 918; People v. Parris, 109 A.D.2d 853). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.