Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Where a defendant charged with an attempted homicide relies on a defense of justification, evidence of a victim's prior acts of violence, of which the defendant had knowledge, are admissible provided that the acts were reasonably related to the crime with which the defendant was charged ( see People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 818; People v Miller, 39 NY2d 543, 552; People v Washington, 44 AD3d 973, 973-974). Here, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in limiting admission of the evidence of the victim's prior acts of violence. Moreover, the excluded evidence would have been merely cumulative ( see People v Washington, 44 AD3d at 974).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence regarding his defense of justification is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492; see also People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Giammarino, 105 AD2d 802). Further, 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 contention that he was penalized for going to trial rather than accepting a plea offer is also unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Evans, 16 AD3d 595, 596) and, in any event, is without merit. The sentencing minutes indicate that the court relied upon the appropriate factors in sentencing the defendant to a higher sentence than that which was offered during plea negotiations ( see People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, cert denied 449 US 1087; People v Evans, 16 AD3d at 596). The fact that the defendant's sentence was greater than the one he would have received had he pleaded guilty does not establish his entitlement to a lesser sentence ( see People v Evans, 16 AD3d at 596; People v Hinton, 285 AD2d 476).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).