Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492; People v Williams, 38 AD3d 925). 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, 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, 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 counts of the indictment charging murder in the first degree are not multiplicitous ( see People v Timmons, 54 AD3d 883). Furthermore, the defendant's challenge to the instructions given to the grand jury is not reviewable on appeal, as his judgment of conviction was based upon legally sufficient evidence ( see People v DeHaney, 66 AD3d 1040). Moreover, the defendant failed to make a sufficient record to permit review of his claim that the trial court erred in its response to a jury note ( see People v Ramirez, 60 AD3d 560).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.