Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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 the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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, 644-645).
The defendant's challenge to certain allegedly improper remarks by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641). In any event, the challenged remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial ( see People v Zivkovich, 237 AD2d 473; People v Yates, 207 AD2d 567).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that "[a] person is presumed, by law, to intend the natural and probable consequence of his acts" ( see Sandstrom v Montana, 442 US 510) is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467; People v Tate, 200 AD2d 602, 602-603). In any event, the contention is without merit, as the court's charge, read as a whole, made clear that it was the jury's role to determine the defendant's intent, and that the People bore the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant acted with the intent to kill ( see People v Green, 50 NY2d 891, 893, cert denied 449 US 957; People v Tate, 200 AD2d at 603). We note, however, that trial courts should avoid using the challenged language ( see People v Green, 50 NY2d at 893), and should, instead, use language similar to that recommended by the Committee on Criminal Jury Instructions ( see CJI2d [NY] Culpable Mental States — Intent; People v Getch, 50 NY2d 456, 465).
To the extent that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel involve matters dehors the record, they may not be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v Campbell, 6 AD3d 623, 624). Insofar as we are able to review the defendant's claims, we find that defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see Penal Law § 70.04 [b]; People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513, 519; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).