Opinion
June 9, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's pro se argument that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the challenge to a prospective juror for cause is unpreserved for appellate review as only counsel for the codefendant, and not counsel for the defendant, raised an objection to the juror (see, People v Toval, 216 A.D.2d 500). In any event, the prospective juror did not possess a state of mind that would preclude her from rendering an impartial verdict (see, CPL 270.20).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit (see, People v. Doolittle, 226 A.D.2d 551).
Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.