Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in charging the jury that the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance should not be considered unless and until they determined that the People proved intent beyond a reasonable doubt has not been preserved for this court's review (see, People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467). In any event, that contention is without merit. The fact that the defendant may have acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance serves to explain his actions, but does not make those actions any less intentional (see, People v Patterson, 39 N.Y.2d 288, affd 432 U.S. 197).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.