Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court acted properly in refusing to charge the jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance ( see, Penal Law § 125.25 [a]). No reasonable view of the evidence supported a conclusion that the defendant, who concededly had a protracted history of disputes with the two victims, acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance when, while conversing with them in their car, he shot them ( see, People v White, 79 N.Y.2d 900; People v Hairston, 208 A.D.2d 765; People v Murden, 190 A.D.2d 822).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.