
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alex Gonzalez, Appellant.
    [636 NYS2d 846]
   Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered May 11, 1994, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree arising out of an incident in which the complainant was attacked on a Brooklyn street corner and suffered serious head injuries. Approximately months after the attack, the defendant was arrested at the police precinct, after the complainant identified him as the attacker.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), the jury could reasonably have inferred from the conduct of the defendant and the surrounding circumstances that the defendant struck the complainant in the head with a hammer, causing him severe injuries (see, People v Clark, 128 AD2d 798). Legally sufficient evidence therefore existed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the requisite mental culpability for the crime of attempted murder in the second degree as well as the lesser convictions. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that Detective Robert Cortes’ testimony, which referred to a complaint report, was inadmissible hearsay. Upon arriving at the scene of the crime, in addition to speaking with the complainant, Officer Noel Ortiz spoke with an unidentified Hispanic male. The conversations were incorporated into the complaint report. The detective’s testimony that he referred to the complaint report before picking up the defendant was not offered for its truth but to demonstrate how the defendant was apprehended 1½ months after the incident. Therefore, the testimony was not inadmissible hearsay (see, People v Nieves, 67 NY2d 125, 131).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.  