Opinion
October 5, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cohen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although the defendant presented evidence that he had consumed quantities of alcohol and narcotics prior to the commission of the crimes charged, the jury nevertheless found that he was capable of forming the requisite intent to commit the crimes of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree. We see no basis in this record for disturbing the jury's verdict (see, e.g., People v. Charles, 114 A.D.2d 466; People v Handly, 102 A.D.2d 922). Nor do we find that the sentencing court violated Penal Law § 70.25 (2) by imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment upon the convictions for murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree, since the attempted murder of one victim was not a material element of the crime of the murder of the other (see, e.g., People v. Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839). Finally, we decline to modify the defendant's sentence in the interest of justice. In view of the seriousness of the crimes, we cannot say that the sentencing court abused its discretion in imposing sentence (see, e.g., People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have reviewed the defendant's other claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in his pro se supplemental brief and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Harwood, JJ., concur.