Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant preserved his contention that the trial court erred in failing to give a missing witness instruction with respect to a potential witness for the People. Although the trial court should have given a missing witness instruction, the failure to do so was harmless ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242; People v Beltry, 235 AD2d 546; compare People v Marsalis, 22 AD3d 866, 869).
With respect to the missing witness instruction regarding a witness for the defense, the defendant failed to rebut the People's prima facie showing that they were entitled to that instruction ( see People v Edwards, 14 NY3d 733, 735; People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 200-201; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-431). Likewise, since the defendant chose to present affirmative proof in his defense, the fact that he failed to call a material witness under his control was properly brought to the jury's attention and did not impermissibly shift the burden of" proof ( see People v Rivera, 292 AD2d 549; People v Wood, 271 AD2d 705; People v Shaw, 112 AD2d 958, 959-960; see generally People v Savinon, 100 NY2d at 199-200).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410, cert denied 542 US 946; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit ( see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821; People v Tardbania, 72 NY2d 852, 853; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109; People v White, 5 AD3d 511; compare People v Williams, 65 AD3d 484, 489).