Opinion
November 10, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Two eyewitnesses identified the defendant as the man who fired three gunshots in the direction of Willie Montez. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must, we find that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict (see, Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307; People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; see also, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). Moreover, the defendant's contention that the jury's verdict of acquittal on the first count of the indictment, charging him with attempted murder in the second degree, was repugnant to a finding of guilt of attempted assault, is unpreserved for appellate review, inasmuch as defense counsel did not object to the verdict prior to the discharge of the jury (see, People v Alfaro, 108 A.D.2d 517, affd 66 N.Y.2d 985; People v Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745). In any event, since the elements of the crime of attempted assault in the first degree (see, Penal Law § 110.00, 120.10 Penal [1]) are materially different from the elements of the crime of attempted murder in the second degree, (see, Penal Law § 110.00, 125.25 Penal [1]), the claim of repugnancy is without merit (see, People v Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1; People v Alfaro, supra, p 519; People v Rivera, 112 A.D.2d 327, 328). Additionally, there is no basis for modification of the imposed sentence.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for review or without merit. Lazer, J.P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.