Rose, J.
Defendant's conviction of the crime of assault in the second degree resulted from an altercation during which the victim sustained a deep, 21-inch long laceration to his right arm. Following trial, Supreme Court denied defendant's motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 and then sentenced him to a prison term of seven years and three years of postrelease supervision.
On appeal, defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he intentionally, rather than recklessly, caused serious physical injury to the victim. We disagree. There was testimony that defendant had been hostile towards the victim and his family throughout the day of the assault, pulled a knife on the victim's brother-in-law and drove his car into the rear of the victim's vehicle. In light of this, as well as testimony that defendant was then seen holding a crowbar and a knife just before swinging the crowbar at the victim and physically fighting with him, the trial evidence sufficiently demonstrated defendant's intent to physically injure the victim (see People v. Hogencamp, 300 A.D.2d 734, 735; People v. Coffin, 263 A.D.2d 780, 781).
Relying on his own testimony that he did not have a knife on the evening in question and the inability of police officers to find a knife at the scene, defendant also claims that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the victim's injury was caused by a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument rather than broken glass on the ground. The victim's brother-in-law testified, however, that he observed defendant holding a knife (see People v. Kranz, 155 A.D.2d 555, 556, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 859). Also, the physician who treated the victim at the emergency room testified that the victim's laceration was "a very straight wound" caused by a very sharp object, no remnants of glass were found in the victim's arm and the laceration was more consistent with a knife wound (see People v. Wade, 274 A.D.2d 438, 439, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 939; People v. Vincent, 231 A.D.2d 444, 445, lvs denied 89 N.Y.2d 925, 931). Thus, after reviewing both the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495), we find no basis to disturb the verdict.
Defendant's remaining contentions, including his challenge to the severity of the sentence, have been considered and found to be unavailing.
Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.