The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations ( see People v. Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94).
The court properly declined to charge justification. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to defendant, and with recognition of a defendant's right to assert inconsistent theories of defense ( see People v. Steele, 26 NY2d 526, 529), we conclude that no reasonable view of the evidence supported a justification defense ( see People v. Hubrecht, 2 AD3d 289, 290, lv denied 2 NY3d 741). In order to find that defendant acted in self-defense, the jury would have to take an arbitrary and speculative view of the integrated testimony of a defense witness ( see People v. Negron, 91 NY2d 788, 792-793).
Defendant's challenges to the main and supplemental charges do not warrant reversal. Although some of the language employed by the court was disapproved by us in People v. Johnson ( 11 AD3d 224), we find that in this case there was no prejudice to defendant, insofar as the court made it clear, especially in a supplemental instruction, that defendant was entitled to all reasonable factual inferences and the People had the burden of proving every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. Garcia, 15 AD3d 151; People v. Cooper, 233 AD2d 267, lv denied 89 NY2d 984).