Opinion
March 1, 1999
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support his conviction of driving while intoxicated because the People failed to establish the element of intoxication. That contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to establish that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 ( see, People v. Sawinski, 246 A.D.2d 689, 691; People v. Kane, 240 A.D.2d 516). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's contention that the court's single reference to driving while intoxicated as a felony during the jury charge constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; People v. Amato, 238 A.D.2d 432), and, in any event, is without merit ( see, People v. Woodrow, 212 A.D.2d 834; cf., People v. Cooper, 78 N.Y.2d 476), particularly given the court's prompt curative instruction to the jury.
The court's Sandoval ruling did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, People v. Ardila, 202 A.D.2d 514, affd 85 N.Y.2d 846; People v. McAleavey, 159 A.D.2d 646).
Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.