Opinion
December 17, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in a 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. 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).
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the People failed to prove that he ever intended to use the weapon unlawfully against another. Under Penal Law § 265.15 (4), if the possessor is not licensed to carry the firearm in question, mere possession of a loaded firearm is presumptive evidence of possession of the weapon with an intent to use it unlawfully against another. This statutory presumption allowed the jury to infer such intent (see, People v. Wooten, 149 A.D.2d 751; People v. Evans, 106 A.D.2d 527). Further, while there was evidence that the underlying shooting was accidental, the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is not based upon the nature of its subsequent use (see, People v. Pons, 68 N.Y.2d 264).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Martinez, 153 A.D.2d 957) and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.