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. The People proved that the defendant was intoxicated based upon his appearance and conduct at the scene ( see People v. Smith, 179 A.D.2d 1060), and his failure to follow instructions with the Alcosenser and Intoxilyzer tests ( see People v. Adler, 145 A.D.2d 943). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual 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).
Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of driving while intoxicated as a felony. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we conclude that legally sufficient proof was adduced at trial to support defendant's conviction (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495; see also, People v Smith, 179 A.D.2d 1060; People v Cole, 178 A.D.2d 1016). The proof concerning defendant's intoxication was uncontroverted.
Memorandum: The testimony of the three police officers was sufficient to establish that defendant was intoxicated. We note the proof of defendant's erratic driving, impaired coordination, and extreme irrationality and belligerence (see, People v Smith, 179 A.D.2d 1060). Defendant's sentence is not harsh or severe.