Majority
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), rendered January 15, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove the element of intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, we find unpersuasive the defendant’s argument that the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance was established as a matter of law. At best, the evidence submitted in support of this defense raised an issue of fact to be resolved by the jury (see generally, People v Moye, 66 NY2d 887 ; People v Tabarez, 113 AD2d 461 , lv granted 67 NY2d 767 ), and we discern no basis in the present record for upsetting the factfinders’ rejection of the proffered defense (see, People v LaSalle, 105 AD2d 756 ; People v Morrison, 95 AD2d 868 ; People v Solari, 43 AD2d 610 , affd 35 NY2d 876 ). Additionally, we find the sentence imposed to be well within both statutory and discretionary bounds and neither harsh nor excessive in light of the instant offense (see, People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302 ; People v Flores, 101 AD2d 657 ; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ). Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Malizia 62 NY2d 755 p. 779
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 p. 779
- People v. Moye 66 NY2d 887 p. 779
- People v. Tabarez 113 AD2d 461 p. 779
- 873 Third Avenue Corp. v. Kenvic Associates 67 NY2d 767 p. 779
- People v. Lasalle 105 AD2d 756 p. 779
- People v. Solari 43 AD2d 610 p. 779
- People v. Solari 35 NY2d 876 p. 779
- People v. Farrar 52 NY2d 302 p. 779
- People v. Flores 101 AD2d 657 p. 779
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 779