Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The trial court correctly denied the defendant's request for a missing witness charge with respect to a particular uncalled witness because the request, which was made after both sides had rested, was untimely ( see People v Simon, 6 AD3d 733; People v McCloud, 305 AD2d 428). In any event, such a charge would have been inappropriate because the uncalled witness was unavailable and his testimony would have been cumulative ( see People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428).
The defendant's claim that the court erred in denying his request for a circumstantial evidence charge is without merit. A court is required to honor a defendant's request for this charge only where the evidence of his participation in criminal activity is "wholly circumstantial" ( People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636; see People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375, 380). Here, the defendant's own statements constituted direct evidence of his involvement in the criminal activity at issue ( see People v Licitra, 47 NY2d 554, 558-559).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86).
The defendant's contention raised in point III of his brief is unpreserved for appellate review, and his remaining contention is without merit.