The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that the hot bath water that scalded the subject child was used as a dangerous instrument ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v. Smith, 303 AD2d 426, 427; People v. Ibarra, 273 AD2d 87). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the second degree ( see Penal Law § 120.05; People v. Mattison, 226 AD2d 924, 924-925; People v. Holden, 188 AD2d 757, 759-760; People v. Durkin, 132 AD2d 668, 668-669). 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).

Defendant advised the court that he understood the charges and that his plea would result in a conviction of those charges. He answered in the negative when asked if anyone was forcing him to plead guilty or whether he was under the influence of any drugs. Based upon the record and defendant's failure to offer any support for his claim that he was on medication at the time and did not understand the nature of the charges, we find no basis for reversing the conviction ( see, People v Mattison, 226 AD2d 924). We also reject defendant's contention that the plea allocution was insufficient.