Judgment affirmed.
The trial court did not err in permitting the introduction of evidence that the defendant had recently assaulted the victim. This evidence went to establish the defendant's motive and intent and the court properly instructed the jury of the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted (see, People v. Mees, 47 N.Y.2d 997, 998).
Despite undisputed evidence that defendant was drunk at the time of the homicide, there is no basis in the record for disturbing the jury's verdict since, from the facts of this case, it could have been reasonably concluded that the defendant had the requisite intent to commit the crime charged (see, People v Charles, 114 A.D.2d 466; People v. Orr, 43 A.D.2d 836, affd 35 N.Y.2d 829). Bracken, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.