Opinion
February 2, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct should be evaluated based upon an objective rather than a subjective standard. Having failed to object to such instruction, the defendant has not properly preserved the issue for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Richardson, 118 A.D.2d 667; People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467; People v. Richburg, 109 A.D.2d 899; People v. Doctor, 98 A.D.2d 780). In any event, the justification defense includes a requirement that the defendant meet an objective standard based upon how a reasonable person would have acted (see, People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96).
The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge justification as to the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree. Since trial counsel explicitly approved of the charge as given, raising no objections or exceptions thereto, the issue of law has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Williams, 115 A.D.2d 627). Given the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt and the evidence rebutting the justification defense (see, People v. Hanley, 112 A.D.2d 1048; People v. Doctor, supra), we decline to exercise our discretion to grant the defendant a new trial in the interest of justice (People v. Richardson, supra; People v. Gutierrez, 105 A.D.2d 754, 755; People v. Doctor, supra).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or to involve harmless error. Bracken, J.P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.