DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court erred when it reinstructed the jury on the elements of the crimes charged without reinstructing it on intoxication is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Stewart, 81 N.Y.2d 877, 878-879; People v. Maldonado, 237 A.D.2d 463). In any event, since the jury did not request reinstruction on intoxication, and, upon the court's recharge, the foreperson indicated that the jury was satisfied, the defendant's contention is without merit ( see, People v. Allen, 69 N.Y.2d 915). The Supreme Court's response to the jury's request was meaningful ( see, CPL 310.30; People v. Weinberg, 83 N.Y.2d 262, 267-268; People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296. 308, cert denied 459 U.S. 847; People v. Morales, 223 A.D.2d 562).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.