Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that she used a "dangerous instrument" to injure the complainant is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05). 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 establish that the defendant used a dangerous instrument to injure the complainant ( see Penal Law § 10.00; § 120.05 [2]). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence was legally sufficient to disprove her justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt ( see Penal Law § 35.15 [b]; People v Acquista, 41 AD3d 491, 492; People v Suphal, 7 AD3d 547, 547-548; People v Williams, 304 AD2d 595). 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, 348), 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 contentions regarding the jury instruction concerning "dangerous instruments," and the denial of her request for a charge on the justifiable use of "ordinary physical force," are without merit. The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.