Opinion
March 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's primary argument on appeal is that the court's charge on the intoxication issue was improper and denied him a fair trial. Insofar as the defendant failed to object to the charge as given and further failed to request any additional instructions or clarification of the court's intoxication charge, any allegations of error relating to the charge are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Robinson, 36 N.Y.2d 224, 228, remittitur amended 37 N.Y.2d 784).
In any event, upon our review of the court's instructions, we conclude that the charge to the jury conveyed the proper burden of proof to the jury (see, People v Gilbert, 136 A.D.2d 562, 563; People v Allen, 121 A.D.2d 453, 454, affd 69 N.Y.2d 915, 916) and we do not find that there was inadequate or unbalanced marshaling of the evidence (see, People v Gray, 144 A.D.2d 483, 484) which would have denied the defendant a fair trial (see, People v Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665, 667).
Additionally, we note that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.