Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of extreme emotional disturbance. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was insufficient evidence for the jury to determine that the defendant either acted under the subjective influence of extreme emotional disturbance or that there was a reasonable explanation for this disturbance (see, People v Moye, 66 N.Y.2d 887, 890; People v Casassa, 49 N.Y.2d 668, cert denied 449 U.S. 842). The testimony at trial suggested, at most, that the defendant was angry and hurt because of the termination of his relationship with the deceased (see, People v Tulloch, 179 A.D.2d 794; People v Mejia, 166 A.D.2d 675; People v Reeves, 163 A.D.2d 590; People v Rivera, 123 A.D.2d 794).
The sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate in view of the evidence adduced at trial and the defendant's criminal background (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.