Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the medical examiner to express an opinion regarding the possible number of assailants involved in the murder (see, People v. Hill, 85 N.Y.2d 256, 261). It is well settled that an "`expert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror'" (People v. Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277, 288, quoting De Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 307; see, People v. Hill, supra, at 261).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's circumstantial evidence charge adequately conveyed to the jury the principle that the evidence had to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt every hypothesis of innocence (see, People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428; see also, People v. Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022; People v Rodriguez, 232 A.D.2d 662).
Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Joy, J.P., Goldstein, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.