DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to recharge the jury on the justification defense is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise the issue in that court (see CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, the Supreme Court, pursuant to the jury's two requests, properly reinstructed the jury on the law applicable to the crimes charged (see People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 132; People v. Jackson, 226 A.D.2d 476, 477). However, neither the jury nor the defendant asked the court to recharge the justification defense and the Supreme Court was not required to do so, sua sponte (see People v. Hill, 224 A.D.2d 445).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly admitted evidence of a prior uncharged crime is also unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Berrios, 71 N.Y.2d 905, 906). In any event, evidence of uncharged crimes is admissible if it is relevant to a material issue at trial and its probative value outweighs its potential for prejudice (see People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241-242). Here, the evidence was properly admitted, as background material needed to complete the narrative (see People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932; People v. George, 292 A.D.2d 541, 542).
The determination to grant a defendant youthful offender treatment lies wholly within the discretion of the sentencing court (see People v. Wallace, 246 A.D.2d 676). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender treatment.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY and MASTRO, JJ., concur.