Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant did not register an exception to that portion of the court's charge to which he now objects and made no request for an alibi charge, thereby failing to preserve either issue for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Brooks, 70 N.Y.2d 896; People v. Cadorette, 56 N.Y.2d 1007, 1009; People v Howard, 153 A.D.2d 903, 905; People v. Francis, 137 A.D.2d 553; People v. Spruill, 103 A.D.2d 785). Further, and contrary to the defendant's contentions, the evidence adduced on the People's rebuttal case was relevant to a material issue at trial since it tended to undermine the defendant's testimony that he was merely an innocent bystander and not the perpetrator of the crime (see, e.g., People v. Beavers, 127 A.D.2d 138, 141; see also, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Wise, 46 N.Y.2d 321, 328; People v Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 245, cert denied 396 U.S. 846).
The defendant's contention that the verdict sheet submitted to the jury was improper is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Edwards, 160 A.D.2d 720; People v. Moore, 156 A.D.2d 478; People v. Lugo, 150 A.D.2d 502), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v. Howard, supra, at 905; People v. Lugo, supra; People v McKenzie, 148 A.D.2d 472).
Under the circumstances, the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.