Opinion
March 15, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence adduced at the trial was legally insufficient to establish that he was guilty of murder in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 125.25 (2) is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstances of the crime, to wit, the defendant stabbing an unarmed woman with a fold-out knife containing an approximately 4 1/2 inch-long blade during a heated argument over a drug-related debt was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's mens rea (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v. Sosa, 181 A.D.2d 532). 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).
In view of the defendant's failure to raise an objection to that portion of the trial court's charge which submitted the two counts of murder pursuant to Penal Law § 125.25 (1) and (2) along with the lesser-included offenses of manslaughter in the first degree and manslaughter in the second degree, respectively, the defendant's contention that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury regarding the submission of inconsistent murder counts is similarly unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Smith, 144 A.D.2d 505). In any event, in light of the court's charge, which instructed the jury to consider both the murder counts and, thereafter, the lesser-included offenses in the alternative, and the single-count verdict the jury ultimately rendered, this contention is without merit (see, CPL 300.40; People v. Gallagher, 69 N.Y.2d 525; People v. Doyle, 163 A.D.2d 487).
The defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was unduly excessive is without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80; see also, People v. Magee, 116 A.D.2d 742; cf., People v. Diaz, 118 A.D.2d 651). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.