DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As the defendant made only generalized motions for a trial order of dismissal, this contention is not preserved for appellate review (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10). The defendant's post-verdict motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 330.30, in which he raised essentially the same argument that he now raises on appeal, was not sufficient to preserve this contention for appellate review (see People v. Padro, 75 N.Y.2d 820). In any event, 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.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.