Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no requirement that a trial court instruct the jury that the prosecution's witnesses are interested as matter of law. It is proper for a trial court to charge that a defendant is an interested witness (see, People v. Ochs, 3 N.Y.2d 54, 56; People v. Stokes, 117 A.D.2d 693, 694), provided the court also indicates that the prosecution's witnesses may be interested (see, People v. Reyes, 118 A.D.2d 666; People v. Astol, 118 A.D.2d 578; People v Brabham, 77 A.D.2d 626; People v. Srbu, 51 A.D.2d 978). While a trial court must give a balanced charge (see, People v. Bell, 38 N.Y.2d 116, 120), the determination of whether a witness is interested in the outcome of a case is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury's determination (see, People v. Gerdvine, 210 N.Y. 184, 186; People v. Reyes, supra; People v. Srbu, supra). Accordingly, the court did not err in refusing to grant the defendant's request to charge that the prosecution's police witnesses are interested as a matter of law (see, People v. Simpson, 99 A.D.2d 555, 556).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Teeter, 47 N.Y.2d 1002) or without merit (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.