Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered.
The People's case against the defendant was based upon circumstantial evidence. While the trial court's charge to the jury on circumstantial evidence was not a misstatement of law, we find that, under the circumstances of this case, it failed to adequately convey to the jury the reasoning process to be followed in assessing such proof (cf. People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 442). The proof of guilt was strong, but not overwhelming. For that reason, the inadequacy of the charge was prejudicial error requiring reversal and a new trial in the interest of justice, notwithstanding the defendant's failure to except to the charge (see, People v. Bernardo, 83 A.D.2d 1; People v. Vasquez, 47 A.D.2d 934).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J.P., Thompson, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.