Thomas A. Kenniff, Mineola, NY, for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Hilda Mortensen and W. Thomas Hughes of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert A. McDonald, J.), rendered September 8, 2017, convicting him of assault in the second degree and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was charged with assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]), resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30), obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05), and disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20 [3]) arising out of an altercation he had with a police officer who had been investigating a complaint of slashed car tires in a neighborhood in Oceanside, Nassau County. In March 2016, the defendant was convicted, upon a jury verdict, of disorderly conduct; the jury could not reach a verdict as to the remaining charges. This Court affirmed the defendant's conviction of disorderly conduct (see People v Califano, 155 AD3d 647 [2017]). Upon retrial in June 2016 of the charges of assault in the second degree, resisting arrest, and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, the defendant was convicted, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree and resisting arrest. The defendant appeals.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]) and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30; see People v Riccobono, 282 AD2d 552, 552-553 [2001]; People v Coulanges, 264 AD2d 853, 853 [1999]; see also People v Weaver, 16 NY3d 123, 128 [2011]). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court erred in charging the jury (see People v Spillman, 57 AD3d 580, 581 [2008]; People v Henry, 306 AD2d 539, 539-540 [2003]). In any event, the contention is without merit (see People v Commesso, 184 AD2d 719, 721 [1992]; see also People v Spillman, 57 AD3d at 581). Chambers, J.P., Maltese, Duffy and Christopher, JJ., concur.