Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that his conviction for robbery in the first degree, based on the allegation that he "used or threatened the immediate use of a knife", indicated that the jury misunderstood the law, as charged, in light of the fact that the jury acquitted him of the weapon possession count. However, the trial court's charge, to which the defendant had no objection, permitted the verdict returned in this case. Viewing the law as charged, the defendant's conviction was not repugnant as a matter of law (see, People v Johnson, 70 N.Y.2d 819; People v Olcan, 143 A.D.2d 369). Where the verdict is not repugnant as a matter of law, factual inconsistencies do not constitute a ground for reversal (see, People v Fraser, 159 A.D.2d 587; People v Montgomery, 116 A.D.2d 669, 670).
The defendant's contention that the trial court's charge was erroneous is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to object to the proposed charge at the pre-charge conference, did not object to the charge as given, and failed to object to the trial court's additional instruction after receiving a question from the jury during deliberations (see, CPL 470.05; People v Fraser, 159 A.D.2d 587, supra). We decline to review the defendant's contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.