Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference, we find the evidence sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of first degree manslaughter in the shooting death of his girlfriend's stepfather (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620).
Moreover, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of that evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490).
Defendant's contention that the People failed to disprove codefendant's justification defense is without merit (see, People v Lee, 185 A.D.2d 824).
Defendant's challenge to the court's failure to charge the jury that his guilt had to be established beyond a moral certainty is not preserved for appellate review, and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find such a charge unwarranted since both direct and circumstantial evidence were presented to establish defendant's culpability (People v Cave, 191 A.D.2d 704). Further, contrary to defendant's contention, the jury was properly charged on accomplice liability (see, People v Jordan, 187 A.D.2d 731, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 842). Similarly, defendant's contentions concerning the court's justification charge and jury verdict sheet are without merit (see, People v Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102, 1104; People v Sotomayer, 79 N.Y.2d 1029).
Finally, the court's imposition of a prison term, as opposed to Youthful Offender treatment (CPL art 720), was neither an abuse of discretion, nor excessive under the circumstances here present.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.