Majority
—Appeal by the
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 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 [5]).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 ).
Criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree is a lesser-included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Therefore, we dismiss that count of the indictment (see, People v Queen, 258 AD2d 480 ; People v Martinez, 209 AD2d 641 ).
The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Altman, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Udzinski 146 AD2d 245 p. 568
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 p. 568
- People v. Benevento 91 NY2d 708 p. 568
- Permis Construction Corp. v. City of New York 258 AD2d 480 p. 568