Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410, cert denied 542 US 946; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633). The evidence presented at trial supported a finding that the defendant was not acting "under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse" when he stabbed and killed the victim (Penal Law § 125.25 [a]; see People v Reynart, 71 AD3d 1057, 1058; People v Pallonetti, 62 AD3d 1027, 1028).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in limiting certain testimony of the defense expert is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit ( see People v Macuil, 67 AD3d 1025; People v Martin, 33 AD3d 1024).