DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in permitting an emergency room physician to testify as to matters claimed to be beyond his scope of expertise is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10 ; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879 ; Smith v. City of New York, 238 A.D.2d 500 ). In any event, a physician need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify, provided that he possesses the requisite knowledge, and the weight to be attached to an expert's opinion is a matter for the jury (see, Forte v. Weiner, 200 A.D.2d 421 ; Humphrey v. Jewish Hosp. Med. Center of Brooklyn, 172 A.D.2d 494 ). Also, "[p]ractical experience may properly substitute for academic training in determining whether an individual has acquired the training necessary to be qualified as an expert" (see, People v. Donaldson, 107 A.D.2d 758, 759 ). Accordingly, since the emergency room physician in this case was engaged in a practice that required him to examine and treat rape victims, he was properly allowed to testify as to the significance of the presence or absence of signs of trauma to a woman's body following a rape.
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.