Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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, 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 jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [20041, 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).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting a PowerPoint presentation as to the injuries associated with shaken baby syndrome and in allowing an expert witness to shake a doll in order to demonstrate the force necessary to inflict shaken baby syndrome, as the probative value of the presentation outweighed its prejudicial effect ( see People v Sulayao, 58 AD3d 769, 770; People v Mora, 57 AD3d 571, 572; People v Yates, 290 AD2d 888, 889-890). Moreover, any prejudice was minimized by the court's limiting instructions to the jury ( see People v Sulayao, 58 AD3d at 770).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.