Although defendant alluded to her domestic violence history in her statement to the court at sentencing, she failed to indicate whether or how such history had any impact upon her participation in the instant offense. To the extent that defendant asserts that she is entitled to a reduced sentence as a victim of domestic violence pursuant to CPL 440.47, the record does not reflect that she made the appropriate application for resentencing for such treatment and, thus, this issue is not properly before us (see CPL 440.47 [1] [a], [d]; [2] [d]; Penal Law § 60.12; People v LaRose, 192 A.D.3d 1265, 1265 [2021]). In view of the foregoing, and in light of the extremely violent nature of this crime, we find neither extraordinary circumstances nor an abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Kinchoy, 186 A.D.3d 1838, 1840 [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 973 [2020]; People v Stone, 164 A.D.3d 1577, 1578 [2018]; People v Morrow, 163 A.D.3d 1265, 1266 [2018]; People v Rettig, 307 A.D.2d 473, 473 [2003]).

Although defendant alluded to her domestic violence history in her statement to the court at sentencing, she failed to indicate whether or how such history had any impact upon her participation in the instant offense. To the extent that defendant asserts that she is entitled to a reduced sentence as a victim of domestic violence pursuant to CPL 440.47, the record does not reflect that she made the appropriate application for resentencing for such treatment and, thus, this issue is not properly before us (see CPL 440.47[1][a], [d] ; [2][d]; Penal Law § 60.12 ; People v. LaRose, 192 A.D.3d 1265, 1265, 140 N.Y.S.3d 424 [2021] ). In view of the foregoing, and in light of the extremely violent nature of this crime, we find neither extraordinary circumstances nor an abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (seePeople v. Kinchoy, 186 A.D.3d 1838, 1840, 130 N.Y.S.3d 569 [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 973, 138 N.Y.S.3d 479, 162 N.E.3d 708 [2020] ; People v. Stone, 164 A.D.3d 1577, 1578, 84 N.Y.S.3d 597 [2018] ; People v. Morrow, 163 A.D.3d 1265, 1266, 80 N.Y.S.3d 559 [2018] ; People v. Rettig, 307 A.D.2d 473, 473, 761 N.Y.S.2d 558 [2003] ).

Although defendant alluded to her domestic violence history in her statement to the court at sentencing, she failed to indicate whether or how such history had any impact upon her participation in the instant offense. To the extent that defendant asserts that she is entitled to a reduced sentence as a victim of domestic violence pursuant to CPL 440.47, the record does not reflect that she made the appropriate application for resentencing for such treatment and, thus, this issue is not properly before us (see CPL 440.47 [1] [a], [d]; [2] [d]; Penal Law § 60.12; People v LaRose, 192 A.D.3d 1265, 1265 [2021]). In view of the foregoing, and in light of the extremely violent nature of this crime, we find neither extraordinary circumstances nor an abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Kinchoy, 186 A.D.3d 1838, 1840 [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 973 [2020]; People v Stone, 164 A.D.3d 1577, 1578 [2018]; People v Morrow, 163 A.D.3d 1265, 1266 [2018]; People v Rettig, 307 A.D.2d 473, 473 [2003]).