People v. KingPeople v. King
The defendant‘s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to disprove his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see
Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in limiting the defendant‘s cross-examination of a certain prosecution witness (see People v Rivera, 98 AD3d 529 [2012]; People v Baez, 59 AD3d 635 [2009]; People v Stevens, 45 AD3d 610, 611 [2007]).
The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.