DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 Crim. Proc.[2]; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant' s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant further contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give a missing witness charge in regard to an alleged fourth participant in the burglary at issue. Because the defendant waited until both sides had rested before requesting the charge, the request was untimely and was thus properly denied (see, People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424; People v. Waldron, 154 A.D.2d 635).
THOMPSON, J.P., S. MILLER, FLORIO, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.