Opinion
December 11, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specific enough to preserve for appellate review the issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence, in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Harvey, 175 A.D.2d 138; see also, People v Windley, 78 A.D.2d 55). 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).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (cf., People v Clark, 45 N.Y.2d 432). Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.