Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Kevin B. McGrath, J.), rendered June 21, 2013, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted assault in the third degree, attempted criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, attempted criminal mischief in the fourth degree and harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Kevin B. McGrath, J.), rendered June 21, 2013, modified, on the law, to vacate defendant's conviction for attempted criminal mischief in the fourth degree and to dismiss the count of the accusatory instrument relating thereto and, as modified, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of attempted assault in the third degree (see Penal Law §§ 110.00/121.11) and attempted criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation (see Penal Law §§ 110.00/121.11) was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the trial court's determinations concerning credibility. The credited evidence established that during an argument, defendant grabbed complainant by her hair and pinned her to his bed, punched her in the face with a closed fist at least five times - resulting in facial swelling, bruises and the complainant's glasses being broken in half - and then stuck his fingers down complainant's throat until she gagged and could not breathe.

Defendant's claim that there was insufficient proof of his intent, to the extent preserved for appellate review, is unavailing, since his intent is fairly inferred from his actions (see People v Bueno, 18 NY3d 160, 169 [2011]). Defendant's intent to cause physical injury to the victim was inferable from defendant's act of punching the victim in the face (see Matter of Edward H., 61 AD3d 473 [2009]; Matter of Marcel F., 233 AD2d 442 [1996], lv denied 10 NY3d 841 [2008]). Defendant's intent to interfere with the victim's breathing can be inferred from his conduct in sticking his finger's down the complainant's throat until she gagged (see People v Peterson, 118 AD3d 1151, 1154 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1087 [2014]).

However, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of attempted criminal [*2]mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00/145.00[1]), upon the theory that defendant intentionally damaged the victim's eyeglasses. "The evidence, however, reveals no such specific intent directed toward the eyeglasses, but only toward [the victim] [her]self" (People v Bryant, 85 AD2d 575, 576 [1981]). We modify the judgment accordingly.

Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters outside the record concerning trial counsel's strategic decisions (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). To the extent that the existing record permits review, it does not support a finding that defendant was denied meaningful representation (see e.g. People v Baker, 14 NY3d 266, 270 [2010).

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.