Defendant's contention that the trial court should have given a circumstantial evidence charge is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it without merit, because a circumstantial evidence charge is only required when the prosecution relies entirely on circumstantial evidence (People v Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375), whereas in this case there was substantial direct evidence, most notably testimony about a meeting in which defendant himself proposed the unlawful scheme.
Defendant's contentions concerning the prosecutor's summation are, likewise, both unpreserved and meritless.
Defendant's sentence was not excessive, given the large amount of money stolen by defendant.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.