Julie Cianca, Public Defender, Rochester (Brian Shiffrin of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Ryan P. Ashe of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Karen Bailey Turner, J.), rendered August 4, 2022. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a nonjury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]) and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [1] [b]; [3]).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction inasmuch as he failed to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal after presenting evidence (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]; People v Brooks, 139 AD3d 1391, 1392-1393 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1026 [2016]; People v Nichols, 89 AD3d 1503, 1504 [4th Dept 2011]). Nevertheless, "we necessarily review the evidence adduced as to each of the elements of the crimes in the context of our review of defendant's challenge regarding the weight of the evidence" (People v Desmond, 224 AD3d 1303, 1304 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 964 [2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349-350 [2007]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trial (see Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

Defendant further contends that Penal Law § 265.03 is unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US 1 [2022]). Inasmuch as defendant failed to raise a constitutional challenge to the statute before County Court, any such contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Jacque-Crews, 213 AD3d 1335, 1335-1336 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 39 NY3d 1111 [2023]; People v Reinard, 134 AD3d 1407, 1409 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1074 [2016], cert denied 580 US 969 [2016]), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant's unpreserved contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Present—Lindley, J.P., Montour, Ogden, Greenwood and Keane, JJ.