Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). 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, and not another participant in the altercation, caused physical injury to the victim with a dangerous instrument. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), 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 failed to preserve for appellate review her contention that she was prejudiced by the court's failure to deliver a justification charge ( see CPL 470.05; People v Ford, 78 NY2d 878; People v Kelly, 183 AD2d 784, 785). In any event, since no reasonable view of the evidence would support a finding that the defendant's actions were justified, the court was under no obligation to give a justification charge ( see People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299, 301; cf. People v Petty, 7 NY3d 277, 284; People v Fermin, 36 AD3d 934, 935). The defendant's contention that she was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel based upon her counsel's failure to request a justification charge is without merit.