DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People disproved his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It is well established that justification is not a defense to the use of deadly physical force unless the actor reasonably believes that another person is about to use deadly physical force against him or her and he or she is unable to retreat safely (see, Penal Law § 35.15[a]; People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96; People v. Hall, 220 A.D.2d 615; People v. Rochester, 168 A.D.2d 519). The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant could have retreated safely, but instead chose to seek out the victim with a loaded firearm in his possession and retaliate by shooting the victim several times (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). This evidence negated the essential elements of the justification defense advanced by defendant at trial (see, People v. Snell, 256 A.D.2d 480; People v. Candelaria, 206 A.D.2d 385; People v. Wilson, 168 A.D.2d 696; People v. Douglas, 160 A.D.2d 1015).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.