Opinion
May 3, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
While we agree that the trial court's charge did not adequately convey all of the subjective criteria with respect to the defense of justification, under the circumstances of this case the error was harmless (see, People v Wesley, 76 N.Y.2d 555; People v Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96; People v Phillips, 187 A.D.2d 539; People v Acevedo, 176 A.D.2d 886).
Moreover, the defendant's claims that remarks made by the prosecutor in summation constituted error are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641) or do not warrant reversal of the judgment (see, People v Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179).
The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Balletta and Joy, JJ., concur.