Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's assertion that the trial court improperly delivered an alibi charge over the defense counsel's objection. The defendant's own testimony unequivocally raised an alibi defense (see, CPL 300.10; People v Holt, 67 N.Y.2d 819; cf., People v DeGina, 72 N.Y.2d 768; People v Martin, 66 A.D.2d 995). In addition, the court clearly and emphatically charged the jury that the alibi defense placed no burden upon the defendant, and that the People were required to disprove this defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Howard, 153 A.D.2d 903, 905-906; People v Spruill, 103 A.D.2d 785; cf., People v Victor, 62 N.Y.2d 374).
The defendant's claim that he was physically incapable of participating in the jury selection proceedings due to the effects of his detoxification program is unsupported by the record (see, People v Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, 89, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 U.S. 905; People v Picozzi, 106 A.D.2d 413). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.