Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the People failed to prove the element of intent beyond a reasonable doubt. While there is evidence in the record which indicates that the defendant may have been somewhat intoxicated or under the influence of drugs at the time he stabbed his father to death, a review of all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v Milea, 112 A.D.2d 1011, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 921) reveals ample proof upon which to sustain the jury's verdict (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620).
Moreover, we find unpersuasive the defendant's argument that the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance was established as a matter of law. At best, the evidence submitted in support of this defense raised an issue of fact to be resolved by the jury (see generally, People v Moye, 66 N.Y.2d 887; People v Tabarez, 113 A.D.2d 461, lv granted 67 N.Y.2d 767), and we discern no basis in the present record for upsetting the factfinders' rejection of the proffered defense (see, People v LaSalle, 105 A.D.2d 756; People v Morrison, 95 A.D.2d 868; People v Solari, 43 A.D.2d 610, affd 35 N.Y.2d 876). Additionally, we find the sentence imposed to be well within both statutory and discretionary bounds and neither harsh nor excessive in light of the instant offense (see, People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302; People v Flores, 101 A.D.2d 657; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.