MERCURE, J.P.
The sole contention advanced on appeal is that the jury's verdict finding defendant guilty of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 Veh. Traf.(3) is against the weight of the evidence. We disagree and accordingly affirm.
In our view, the experienced police officers' testimony as to the manner in which defendant drove his vehicle, particularly his excessive speed, weaving within his lane and initial refusal to yield to the officers' lights or siren, and his appearance and conduct, including evidence of defendant's glassy eyes and the strong odor of an alcoholic beverage, defendant's failure of or outright refusal to perform field dexterity tests, refusal to submit to a chemical test, unsteady gait and erratic behavior, provided abundant evidentiary support for the jury's determination (see, People v. Hasenflue, 252 A.D.2d 829, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 982;People v. D'Angelo, 244 A.D.2d 788, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 890; People v. Bowers, 201 A.D.2d 830, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 909). Thus, viewing the evidence in a neutral light, "we conclude that the jury's finding that defendant voluntarily consumed alcohol to the extent that he was incapable to a substantial extent of employing the physical and mental abilities necessary to operate his vehicle in a reasonable and careful manner is not against the weight of the evidence" (People v. D'Angelo, supra, at 789; see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495; People v. Cruz, 48 N.Y.2d 419, 427-428,appeal dismissed 446 U.S. 901).
Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.