Defendant expressly waived his present challenge to the court's justification charge, and the colloquy between the prosecutor and the court on this subject did not constitute the type of ruling on a "protest by a party" contemplated by CPL 470.05(2). Accordingly, this claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant was not prejudiced by any error in the justification charge.
As the People correctly concede, the sentence on the conviction for attempted assault in the first degree was unlawful. We perceive no basis for any other reduction of sentence.
Because both weapon convictions were based on the same possession of the same weapon, we vacate the conviction of third-degree possession in the interest of justice (see, People v. Voss, 262 A.D.2d 105, 106, lv denied, 93 N.Y.2d 1029).
Defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in hispro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.