Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in its instructions on accomplice liability and reasonable doubt. Considering the whole charge on accomplice liability (People v Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 832), we conclude that it conveyed the proper standard to the jury (see, Penal Law § 20.00). There is no merit to defendant's claim that the court's charge on reasonable doubt diluted the People's burden (see, People v Hill, 190 A.D.2d 990; see also, People v. Hill, 154 A.D.2d 887, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 813).
Defendant has failed to preserve for our review the contention that the court erred in failing to charge the defense of justification (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, defendant's contention is without merit. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the accused (People v. McManus, 67 N.Y.2d 541, 549; People v. Falk, 185 A.D.2d 630, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 929), we conclude that it fails to establish that defendant reasonably believed that the victim was about to use deadly physical force (see, People v. Reynoso, 73 N.Y.2d 816, 818; People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299, 301-302; see also, People v. Wesley, 76 N.Y.2d 555, 559). Thus, the court properly refused to charge the defense of justification (see, People v. Loria, 190 A.D.2d 1006).