Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal the defendant contends that the evidence established that he suffered from a serious mental illness and therefore was not criminally responsible for shooting five people at New York Technical College on August 12, 1986. We disagree. While the psychiatric testimony presented at trial indicated that the defendant suffers from a schizophrenic disorder, the People's expert was of the opinion that he nevertheless 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 shootings (see, Penal Law § 40.15, 25.00 Penal). Generally, where conflicting expert testimony is presented, the question of sanity is primarily for the jury (see, People v. Enchautegui, 156 A.D.2d 461; People v Briecke, 143 A.D.2d 1025). A jury has the right to accept or reject the opinion of any expert and where, as here, there is an absence of a serious flaw in the testimony of the People's expert, no basis exists for disturbing the jury's finding (see, People v. Ludwigsen, 159 A.D.2d 591; People v. Enchautegui, supra; People v. Briecke, supra; People v. Markowitz, 133 A.D.2d 379).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.