The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Contrary to defendant's arguments, his guilt of forgery in the second degree and possession of a forged instrument in the second degree was established by ample evidence that he signed the name of "James Williams", an actual person, thereby causing various documents to be issued in that name, and unlawfully collected welfare benefits therefrom.
Defendant's claim that he was entitled to a circumstantial evidence charge is unpreserved since he did not request such a charge, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that such a charge was not required because there was both direct and circumstantial evidence of defendant's guilt (see, People v. Roldan, 88 N.Y.2d 826).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.