Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621; People v Conway, 6 NY3d 869, 872), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application for the appointment, pursuant to County Law § 722-c, of a purported expert in the area of coerced, false confessions, since the defendant failed to establish that the expert's proposed testimony was necessary or relevant to a significant issue at trial ( see People v Cronin, 60 NY2d 430, 433; People v Casiano, 40 AD3d 528, 529, lv denied 9 NY3d 990; People v Oquendo, 250 AD2d 419; cf. Ake v Oklahoma, 470 US 68, 74).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.