DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence established that he suffered from temporary insanity and therefore was not criminally responsible for stabbing two people to death as they lay in their bed. We disagree. While the psychiatric testimony presented at trial indicated that the defendant suffered from extreme emotional disturbance, the People's experts were of the opinion that he had substantial capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of his conduct, and knew that his conduct was wrong at the time of the stabbings ( see, Penal Law § 40.15, 25.00 Penal). Where conflicting expert testimony is presented, the question of sanity is for the jury ( see, People v. Enchautegui, 156 A.D.2d 461), which has the right to accept or reject the opinion of any expert. Where, as here, there is an absence of a serious flaw in the testimony of the People's experts, no basis exists for disturbing the jury's finding ( see, People v. Ludwigsen, 159 A.D.2d 591).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85-6).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., SANTUCCI, SULLIVAN, and FLORIO, JJ., concur.