Opinion
March 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the prosecution failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence that the complainant suffered "physical injury" as defined in Penal Law § 10.00 (9) in order to sustain his convictions of burglary in the first degree and assault in the second degree. However, since the defendant did not raise a specific objection on this ground in his motion for a trial order of dismissal, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Sutton, 161 A.D.2d 612; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, in light of the testimony adduced at the trial, particularly that of the complainant, regarding the extent and duration of his injuries, we find that this contention is without merit (see, People v. Soto, 184 A.D.2d 673; People v Bailey, 176 A.D.2d 809; People v. Campbell, 157 A.D.2d 738; People v. Lundquist, 151 A.D.2d 505). 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).
The defendant's contention concerning the inconsistency of the verdict convicting him of the burglary in the first degree and assault in the second degree and acquitting him of assault in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745; People v. Lyons, 154 A.D.2d 715, 716), and, in any event, devoid of merit (see, People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1; People v. Lyons, supra). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Eiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.