Opinion
May 16, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that the trial testimony was legally sufficient for the jury to find the defendant guilty of the charges upon which he was convicted. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). Based upon our review of the record, we are persuaded that the People disproved the defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (Penal Law § 25.00; §§ 35.00, 35.15).
Although the trial court erred in its jury charge by delivering a statement that could have arguably led the jury to speculate concerning the defendant's sentence or punishment (CPL 300.10), under the circumstances we find the error to be harmless (see, People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969; People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237).
The sentence the defendant received was not unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Finally, we have reviewed the contentions raised in the defendant's supplemental pro se brief and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.