he evidence, "this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the People to evaluate whether any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could satisfy every element of the charged crime[ ] and lead rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury" ( People v. Pratt, 162 A.D.3d 1202, 1202, 78 N.Y.S.3d 511 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 940, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– [2018] ; seePeople v. Robinson, 156 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 67 N.Y.S.3d 709 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1119, 77 N.Y.S.3d 344, 101 N.E.3d 985 [2018] ). In assessing the weight of the evidence, "[w]here, as here, a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we must ... weigh conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluate the strength of such conclusions" ( People v. Benson, 119 A.D.3d 1145, 1146, 990 N.Y.S.2d 321 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 1118, 3 N.Y.S.3d 759, 27 N.E.3d 473 [2015] ; seePeople v. Williams, 130 A.D.3d 1323, 1324, 13 N.Y.S.3d 698 [2015] ; People v. Chancey, 127 A.D.3d 1409, 1410, 8 N.Y.S.3d 451 [2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1199, 16 N.Y.S.3d 522, 37 N.E.3d 1165 [2015] ). As relevant here, a person is guilty of murder in the second degree when, "[w]ith intent to cause the death of another person, he [or she] causes the death of such person" ( Penal Law § 125.25[1] ).
crime[s] and lead rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury" ( People v. Reese, 166 A.D.3d 1057, 1058, 87 N.Y.S.3d 711 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 953, 100 N.Y.S.3d 206, 123 N.E.3d 865 [2019] ; seePeople v. Novak, 148 A.D.3d 1352, 1354, 50 N.Y.S.3d 577 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1084, 64 N.Y.S.3d 174, 86 N.E.3d 261 [2017] ). "When undertaking a weight of the evidence review, we must first determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, a different finding would not have been unreasonable and, if not, then weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" ( People v. Terry, 196 A.D.3d 840, 841, 149 N.Y.S.3d 705 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lvs denied 37 N.Y.3d 1027, 1030, 153 N.Y.S.3d 411, 432, 175 N.E.3d 436, 457 [2021]; seePeople v. Williams, 130 A.D.3d 1323, 1323–1324, 13 N.Y.S.3d 698 [2015] ). Because defendant made only a general objection at the close of the People's proof to dismiss the sex offenses, his legal sufficiency claims with respect thereto are unpreserved for our review (seePeople v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19–21, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995] ; People v. Baber, 182 A.D.3d 794, 795, 123 N.Y.S.3d 222 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1064, 129 N.Y.S.3d 365, 152 N.E.3d 1167 [2020] ).
Furthermore, the People submitted evidence demonstrating that defendant exhibited a high degree of self-control, that the attack on the victim was planned and deliberate and that defendant had a calm demeanor shortly after the attack (seePeople v. Wagner, 178 A.D.2d 679, 680–681, 577 N.Y.S.2d 332 [1991] ). Viewing the evidence in a neutral light, we find that the verdict rejecting the extreme emotional disturbance defense was not against the weight of the evidence (seePeople v. Williams, 130 A.D.3d 1323, 1326, 13 N.Y.S.3d 698 [2015] ; People v. Chancey, 127 A.D.3d at 1411–1412, 8 N.Y.S.3d 451 ; People v. Hoke, 276 A.D.2d 903, 904, 714 N.Y.S.2d 602 [2000], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 801, 726 N.Y.S.2d 379, 750 N.E.2d 81 [2001] ). Defendant contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his expert was subject to impeachment on further cross-examination after it was discovered that certain notes prepared by the expert when he interviewed defendant were not timely disclosed to the People.