Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The general rule is that where conflicting expert testimony is presented, the question of whether or not the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the commission of the crime is primarily for the trier of fact, who has the right to accept or reject the opinion of any expert ( see, People v. Yong Ho Han, 200 A.D.2d 780; People v. Hamilton, 186 A.D.2d 581; People v. Hull, 162 A.D.2d 550). The trier of fact's determination will be set aside if there is a "serious flaw" in the testimony of the People's experts ( People v. Mainville, 59 A.D.2d 809). Where, as here, the defendant has failed to establish that there was such a flaw, the jury's determination of sanity will not be disturbed ( see, People v. Yong Ho Han, supra; People v. Hull, supra; People v. Enchautegui, 156 A.D.2d 461; People v. Amaya, 122 A.D.2d 888).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.