Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The overwhelming evidence indicates that the decedent, Jeffrey Burley, was unarmed at the time he was shot by the defendant. Moreover, even if, as the defendant claims, Burley were armed, the record clearly indicates that Burley was fleeing from the defendant and headed towards his house at the time he was shot. Therefore, the People disproved the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., People v. Ramsay, 199 A.D.2d 428; People v. Lemaire, 187 A.D.2d 532; People v. Mack, 178 A.D.2d 661).
The trial court did not commit reversible error when it erroneously precluded defense counsel from inquiring into the address of the People's witness. Although the record indicates that the People failed to establish their burden of showing why their witness should have been excused from testifying as to his address (see, People v. Stanard, 42 N.Y.2d 74, cert denied 434 U.S. 986; see also, Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687), such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because defense counsel was able to fully develop his line of questioning on the point (see, People v. Stridiron, 33 N.Y.2d 287; see also, Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. DeRosario, 81 N.Y.2d 801; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Mitchem, 195 A.D.2d 1038) or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.