Opinion
June 12, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the omission of an intoxication charge deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Initially, it must be noted that the defendant never requested such a charge, and did not raise an objection to the court's charge as given. Accordingly, his claim of error has not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v. Carter, 115 A.D.2d 551). In any event, in light of all of the testimony adduced at trial, we find that there was insufficient evidence of intoxication which would lead a reasonable person to doubt that the defendant had the requisite intent to commit the crimes of which he had been accused (see, People v. Perry, 61 N.Y.2d 849). Although it is undisputed that the defendant had a long history of alcohol abuse, the record is barren of any indication that he was intoxicated at the time of the crime. Inasmuch as the evidence adduced at trial did not in any way demonstrate the defendant's intoxication, there was no error in not instructing the jury on that defense (see, People v. Rios, 150 A.D.2d 620; People v. Iturrino, 117 A.D.2d 502; cf., People v. Farnsworth, 65 N.Y.2d 734, revg 106 A.D.2d 878).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Brown, J.P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.