DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the trial court should have explained the contentions of both parties during its charge on consciousness of guilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Christodoulou, 245 A.D.2d 386). In any event, the trial court marshaled the evidence to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law to the facts (see, CPL 300.10; People v. Gayle, 281 A.D.2d 490; People v. Simpson, 270 A.D.2d 507). The trial court's failure to explain the contentions of both parties, under the circumstances of this case, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665; People v. Christodoulou, supra; People v. Barren, 240 A.D.2d 586, 587).
ALTMAN, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.