Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the respective relationships of two prospective jurors with people in the District Attorney's office and the trial prosecutor were so remote in all respects that it did not render them inherently biased. Therefore, the denial of his challenges for cause as to these two prospective jurors was not error ( see, CPL 270.20 [c]; People v. Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410, 418, cert denied 487 U.S. 1239; compare, People v. Branch, 46 N.Y.2d 645, 649, 651).
Viewing e 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 ( see, Penal Law § 125.25; People v. Rios, 230 A.D.2d 87; People v. Rosario, 208 A.D.2d 961; People v. Santana, 163 A.D.2d 495, and 78 N.Y.2d 1027; see also, People v. Coluccio, 170 A.D.2d 523, 524), and to disprove his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.