Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At trial, the defendant did not request a jury instruction on the defense of intoxication and its effect on intent. Therefore, the defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Adams, 166 A.D.2d 711). In any event, in viewing the intoxication evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see, People v. Cortez, 184 A.D.2d 571), there was insufficient evidence regarding the effect the liquor the defendant consumed had on him to warrant a charge on intoxication (see, People v. Rodriguez, 76 N.Y.2d 918).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.