DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
We agree with the defendant's contention that the trial court erred when it charged justification pursuant to a theory of self-defense ( see Penal Law § 35.15), but refused to submit to the jury the defense of justification in defense of premises.
It is well settled that a jury must be charged on justification as a defense to the crime with which the defendant is charged if any reasonable view of the evidence would support the claimed defense and the defendant has requested the charge ( see People v. Daniels, 248 A.D.2d 723, 724).
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the defendant ( see People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299, 301), we conclude that there was a reasonable view of the evidence to support a justification charge pursuant to Penal Law § 35.20(2). The defendant, an employee of a bar, presented evidence that he had repeatedly asked the victims to leave the bar prior to the altercation. This evidence supports a finding that he reasonably believed the victims were committing a criminal trespass and that physical force was necessary to protect the premises. Accordingly, the failure to grant the defendant's request to charge that defense constitutes reversible error ( see People v. Padgett, 60 N.Y.2d 142, 145).
SANTUCCI, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.