DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's conviction stems from his violent assault upon his former girlfriend. When he could not persuade her to resume their relationship, he stabbed her 17 times on a Suffolk County street, and stated "if I can't have you, no one can have you." The complainant survived the attack. The defendant, a diabetic, conceded that he stabbed the complainant, but testified, supported by expert testimony, that he was suffering from a hypoglycemic episode at the time, and was unable to form the requisite criminal intent.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence adduced at the trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), was legally sufficient to establish his guilt of attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. Jones, 309 A.D.2d 819, lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 574; People v. Jamison, 301 A.D.2d 539). The People offered expert testimony to rebut the defense expert that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect of sufficient severity which would interfere with his ability to form the intent to stab the complainant. The conflicting expert testimony created a credibility issue for the jury's determination ( see People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination is clearly supported by the record ( see People v. Mallen, 247 A.D.2d 556). 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 sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.