Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court's charge failed to explain adequately the application of the law of justification to the facts of this case. Defendant did not object to the court's initial charge or its supplemental charge in this regard and therefore he has not preserved this issue for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Harrell, 59 N.Y.2d 620, 622; People v Cotto, 139 A.D.2d 967, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 917; People v Comfort, 113 A.D.2d 430, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 760). We decline to review defendant's contention in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15).