Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the statutory definition of "serious physical injury," and that the trial court should not have inserted the language "may be used" or "might have been used" into the definition of "dangerous instrument," has not been preserved for appellate review since the defendant neither requested such a charge nor objected to the jury charge on this basis (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Perez, 184 A.D.2d 665). Moreover, we are not inclined to reach this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.15 [c]) given that the charge as a whole conveyed the necessary information regarding the People's burden of proof (see, People v. Warren, 76 N.Y.2d 773). Sullivan, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.