Majority
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered October 29, 1997, convicting her of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s challenge to certain portions of the prosecutor’s summation are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Cuffy, 265 AD2d 421 ; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818 , 819) or without merit.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by admitting into evidence photographs depicting the victim’s injuries (see, People v Mastropietro, 232 AD2d 725 ).
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, “[m]ere eligibility for youthful offender status does not mandate youthful offender treatment, and the grant of such a benefit lies wholly within the discretion of the court” (People v Vera, 206 AD2d 494 ; see, People v Cuffy, supra; People v Barr, 168 AD2d 625 ; People v Williams, 124 AD2d 615 ). Here, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender status (see, People v Cuffy, supra; People v Vera, supra; People v Rivas, 246 AD2d 488 ). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Cuffy 265 AD2d 421 p. 431
- People v. Nuccie 57 NY2d 818 at 819 p. 431
- People v. Mastropietro 232 AD2d 725 p. 431
- People v. Williams 124 AD2d 615 p. 431