Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Daniel Sullivan, J.). Defendant's argument that her guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt because of the existence of conflicting medical testimony is without merit. It is the duty of the trier of fact to evaluate and resolve conflicting medical testimony and that determination generally should not be disturbed on appeal. (People v Rock, 49 A.D.2d 666, affd 42 N.Y.2d 845.) Further, defendant has failed to demonstrate that the People's expert relied upon an inaccurate presumption in rejecting the substance of her medical testimony that she did not intentionally commit murder because she suffered from depersonalization, where the claim is based upon a textbook definition of depersonalization which was not presented to the People's expert at the time of trial and which, in any event, is not clearly inconsistent or contrary to the People's expert's testimony.

In rebuttal, the People's expert, who, after reviewing the defendant's medical records and statements to the police, had examined him for a period of 2 1/2 hours, testified that the defendant had not suffered from intermittent explosive disorder and was able to appreciate the nature of his wrongful acts. Where conflicting medical testimony is offered, the question of sanity is for the trier of fact to decide (see, People v Gilbert, 103 A.D.2d 967; People v. Rock, 49 A.D.2d 666, affd 42 N.Y.2d 845). As there was no serious flaw in the testimony of the People's expert, the Trial Judge's finding of sanity should not be disturbed on appeal (see, People v. Mainville, 59 A.D.2d 809; People v. Wood, 12 N.Y.2d 69, 77; cf. People v. Higgins, 5 N.Y.2d 607; People v. Slaughter, 34 A.D.2d 50). With regard to the defendant's remaining contention, the record establishes that the defendant offered no reasonable explanation or excuse for his alleged extreme emotional disturbance (see, People v. Casassa, 49 N.Y.2d 668, 678-679, cert denied 449 U.S. 842; Penal Law § 125.25 [a]). Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

She testified that her findings revealed no symptoms of manic behavior and that, in her opinion, defendant had been capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her behavior on the date in question. ¶ It is well established that where conflicting medical testimony is offered, the question of sanity is for the trier of fact, who has the right to accept or reject the opinion of any expert ( People v. Bell, 64 A.D.2d 785; People v. Rock, 49 A.D.2d 666, affd 42 N.Y.2d 845). Given the conflicting testimony presented at trial, with particular note being taken of the fact that none of defendant's experts could offer an opinion as to her sanity at the time of the crimes, it is clear that County Court could properly find that the prosecution had established defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶ Defendant's second contention is that she was denied effective assistance of counsel.

use for years) in retribution for the death of George Lincoln Rockwell. Qualified psychiatrists, who had made adequate preparation, testified for both the defense and prosecution on the question of sanity (see Penal Law, § 30.05). Where there is a serious flaw in the testimony of the People's experts, the jury's determination is set aside (see, e.g., People vHiggins, 5 N.Y.2d 607 [prosecution's two experts did not examine defendant and one testified equivocally]; People v Slaughter, 34 A.D.2d 50 [prosecution's expert examined defendant cursorily and failed to review crucial medical records]; People v Lee, 29 A.D.2d 837 [expert, retained on morning of his testimony, merely examined defendant's records for 30 minutes]; cf. People v Silver, 33 N.Y.2d 475; People v Thompson, 34 A.D.2d 1097; and People v Hari, 30 A.D.2d 1046 [no expert opinion to rebut defendant's expert proof of insanity]). Absent such flaws, the jury's finding of sanity will not be disturbed (People v Wood, 12 N.Y.2d 69; People v Rock, 49 A.D.2d 666, affd 42 N.Y.2d 845). Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J.P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.