Opinion
November 9, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fertig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claims with respect to certain aspects of the trial court's charge are unpreserved for appellate review due to defense counsel's failure to object to the charge as given (see, CPL 470.05; People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467). In any event, we note that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of extreme emotional disturbance. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was insufficient evidence for the jury to determine that the defendant either acted under the subjective influence of extreme emotional disturbance or that there was a reasonable explanation for this disturbance (see, People v Moye, 66 N.Y.2d 887; People v Casassa, 49 N.Y.2d 668). The testimony of the defense witnesses suggested, at most, that the defendant was angry and agitated after a fight with the victim (see, People v Mejia, 166 A.D.2d 675; People v Reeves, 163 A.D.2d 590).
Further, although the trial court's charge fell short of conveying all subjective criteria with respect to the defense of justification, we do not find that it constituted reversible error under the circumstances of this case (see, Penal Law § 35.15; People v Wesley, 76 N.Y.2d 555; People v Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96; People v Noor, 177 A.D.2d 517; People v Acevedo, 176 A.D.2d 886).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.