—[*1] Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Anna Pervukhin of counsel), for appellant.

Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Lauren-Brooke Eisen and Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered October 11, 2006, convicting him of assault on a police officer and assault in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant caused serious physical injury to the police officer identified in count one of the indictment with the intent to prevent her from performing a legal duty (see Penal Law §§ 120.08, 10.00 [10]; People v Kibbe, 35 NY2d 407, 412 [1974]; People v Kenward, 266 AD2d 155 [1999]; People v Thompson, 245 AD2d 321 [1997]; People v Wright, 221 AD2d 577 [1995]; People v Gibson, 140 AD2d 453 [1988]; People v Gray, 47 AD2d 674 [1975]). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on that count was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

While the defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he committed the crime of assaulting a police officer under count one of the indictment was preserved for appellate review, his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he committed the [*2]crime of assault in the second degree under count three of the indictment is not (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858 [1987]). As to the latter, although the defendant did raise a similar argument in his motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 to set aside the verdict, raising such an argument for the first time in such a motion is not sufficient to preserve a claim for appellate review (see People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820 [1990]; People v Sadler, 49 AD3d 670 [2008]). We decline to review that issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; [6] [a]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]). Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.