Opinion
October 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J., Coffinas, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he possessed a loaded firearm was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245; People v. Hard, 139 A.D.2d 592). In any event, 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 guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Totten, 161 A.D.2d 678). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Furthermore, to the extent that the defendant raises a repugnancy claim, his contention is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985) and, in any event, is without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Sullivan and Miller, JJ., concur.