Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court improperly charged the law of intoxication, over his objection, is without merit. An intoxication charge is warranted where there is "sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis" (People v Perry, 61 N.Y.2d 849). In addition to demonstrating that the defendant had been drinking or using drugs, there must be a showing that these substances affected him to the extent that a reasonable person might entertain a doubt as to his intent (see, People v Rodriguez, 76 N.Y.2d 918, 920-921). Here, there was evidence that the defendant drank five beers and a quart of Bacardi rum on the night of the incident and was subsequently unable to remember his acts. The court therefore properly gave a jury charge on relevant evidence even though the defendant protested that he did not want such a charge (see also, People v Magliato, 68 N.Y.2d 24, 29; People v Giamanco, 188 A.D.2d 547).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either not preserved for appellate review, without merit, or constitute harmless error. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.