Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see Penal Law § 265.03). 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).
The defendant's contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, is without merit ( see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Gonzalez, 44 AD3d 790).
The defendant's claim, also raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that the People violated their disclosure obligations under Brady v Maryland ( 373 US 83), is based on factual assertions outside the record and thus, is not reviewable on direct appeal ( see People v Williams, 43 AD3d 729).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.