Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the trial court erred in failing to deliver a circumstantial evidence charge has not been preserved for appellate review inasmuch as no such charge was requested by the defendant, and no exception to the charge as delivered was taken by him (CPL 470.05; People v. Willis, 107 A.D.2d 830; People v. Royster, 99 A.D.2d 761). In any event, such a charge was not warranted under the facts of this case (see, People v. Ruiz, 52 N.Y.2d 929, 930; People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 379-380). Similarly, the defendant's claim with respect to the trial court's charge on the defense of justification is unpreserved for our review (CPL 470.05; People v. Lopez, 113 A.D.2d 475, 479, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 946). Furthermore, the charge conveyed the proper standard for the jury's consideration and tracked the language of the statute (see, Penal Law § 35.15; People v Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96, 115).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85-86; People v. Roman, 84 A.D.2d 851). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Rubin, JJ., concur.