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, the Supreme Court's determination that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting "under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse" when he stabbed and killed the victim was not against the weight of the evidence (Penal Law § 125.25 [a]; see Penal Law § 125.20; People v Roche, 98 NY2d 70; People v Chambers, 18 AD3d 571; People v George, 7 AD3d 810). The court reasonably concluded that the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime were not indicative of a loss of self-control or similar mental infirmity ( see People v Roche, supra; People v Palacios, 302 AD2d 540). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly rejected the defendant's affirmative defense.