Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of criminally negligent homicide beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 125.10; People v Boutin, 75 N.Y.2d 692; cf., People v Thomas, 169 A.D.2d 792). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The court's charge with regard to criminally negligent homicide was proper. The test of the sufficiency of the court's instructions to the jury is whether the jury, after hearing the entire charge, would gather from its language the correct rules which should be applied in arriving at its decision (see, People v Gardner, 59 A.D.2d 913; People v Russell, 266 N.Y. 147; see also, People v Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 832). The court charged the jury as to the statutory elements of criminally negligent homicide (see, Penal Law § 125.10, 15.05 Penal [4]). Moreover, the court followed closely the charge suggested for criminally negligent homicide in the Criminal Jury Instructions (see, 2 CJI[NY] PL 125.10, at 187-190). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.