Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support her conviction of assault in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Soto, 8 AD3d 683, 684). 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 support the conviction. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), 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 contention, the Supreme Court correctly declined to submit to the jury the charge of criminal trespass in the second degree as a lesser-included offense of burglary in the second degree, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant committed the lesser offense without having committed the greater offense ( see CPL 300.50; People v Scarborough, 49 NY2d 364; People v Murdaugh, 38 AD3d 918, 919).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83).