05; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641). In any event, the challenged remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial ( see People v Zivkovich, 237 AD2d 473; People v Yates, 207 AD2d 567). The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that "[a] person is presumed, by law, to intend the natural and probable consequence of his acts" ( see Sandstrom v Montana, 442 US 510) is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467; People v Tate, 200 AD2d 602, 602-603).