Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his untimely request for a missing witness charge with respect to a 911 emergency caller, based on its finding that the unidentified caller was not available to the People to testify at trial ( see People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428-429; People v Perry, 218 AD2d 818, 819; cf. People v Gladden, 180 AD2d 747, 748).
The defendant's contention that the People did not disprove his justification defense by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492-493; People v Boyle, 289 AD2d 251, 252). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt ( see Penal Law § 35.15 [a]; People v Lemaire, 187 AD2d 532, 533; People v Henegan, 150 AD2d 606, 607; People v Troche, 147 AD2d 513, 514; People v Rosado, 123 AD2d 649; see also People v Lee, 185 AD2d 824). Moreover, 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 does not require reversal.