Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court's use of the pattern jury instruction regarding the evaluation of declarations against penal interest ( see, 1 CJI[NY] 7.40, at 322) impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to him is unpreserved for appellate review, as this argument was neither raised nor considered at the trial level ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830). In any event, the defendant's claim that the instruction was unbalanced and that the court should have added his proffered language to the charge is without merit. The instruction given was in accord with established legal principles ( see, People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154; People v. Jacobsen, 135 A.D.2d 1118), and the charge as a whole adequately apprised the jury of the correct legal principles to be applied to the case ( see, People v. Ladd, 89 N.Y.2d 893; People v. Fields, 87 N.Y.2d 821).
Miller, J.P., Ritter, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.