DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because his intoxication rendered him incapable of forming the requisite criminal intent ( see Penal Law § 15.25). An intoxicated person can form the requisite criminal intent to commit a crime, and it is for the trier of fact to decide if the extent of the intoxication acted to negate the element of intent ( see People v. Taylor, 245 A.D.2d 399; People v. Bergamini, 223 A.D.2d 548, 549; People v. O'Keefe, 191 A.D.2d 464, 465; People v. Angel, 185 A.D.2d 356, 358). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), 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, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are without merit or do not require reversal.
RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.