Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence adduced at trial, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), provided more than a sufficient basis upon which a rational trier of fact could have determined that the acts of defendant and his companions in pursuing their hapless 14-year-old victim, encircling him on the parking lane of a well-traveled parkway, and violently beating him with sticks so that his only avenue of escape would be into the traffic lane of a well-traveled thoroughfare, created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which the defendant was aware and disregarded. We find that the prosecution met its burden of establishing manslaughter in the second degree (see, People v Licitra, 47 N.Y.2d 554, 558; People v Dayao, 187 A.D.2d 525; People v Kern, 149 A.D.2d 187, affd 75 N.Y.2d 638, cert denied 498 U.S. 824).
In view of the senseless and unprovoked nature of this crime, the defendant's utter indifference toward human life, and his prior violent criminal history, we find no impropriety in the imposition of the maximum permissible sentence (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). We have examined the defendant's pro se arguments and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit. Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.