Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not err in refusing to give a circumstantial evidence instruction that the evidence must exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis but guilt. That evidentiary standard applies only to a case based entirely upon circumstantial evidence (see, People v. Daddona, 81 N.Y.2d 990, 992; see also, People v. Goss, 204 A.D.2d 984 [decided herewith]; cf., People v Silva, 69 N.Y.2d 858, 859; People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428). It does not apply where, as here, the People proffered both direct and circumstantial evidence to prove defendant's guilt (see, People v. Daddona, supra; People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 379-380; People v. Miller, 167 A.D.2d 958, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 909; People v Barnes, 162 A.D.2d 1039, 1040, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 890; People v Brown, 159 A.D.2d 956, 957, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1009).