Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not err in charging the jury that the defendant was an interested witness as a matter of law, particularly since the jury was further instructed that the other witnesses might be interested as well (see, People v. Suarez, 125 A.D.2d 350, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 750). Nor did the court err in refusing to charge that the prosecution witnesses were interested as a matter of law (see, People v. Melvin, 128 A.D.2d 647; cf., People v. Ingrassia, 118 A.D.2d 587; People v. Brabham, 77 A.D.2d 626).
We similarly find no error in the trial court's response to the jury's requests for supplemental instructions (see, People v Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, cert denied 459 U.S. 847), and find that the supplemental instructions given, when read in conjunction with each other, were neither contradictory nor confusing (cf., People v. Lourido, 70 N.Y.2d 428).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Eiber, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.