Judgment affirmed.
The defendant's sole defense at trial was justification. The trial court instructed the jury that the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct should be evaluated based on an objective "ordinary prudent person" standard rather than having the jury consider what the defendant herself reasonably could have thought (see, Penal Law § 35.15 [a]; People v. Miller, 39 N.Y.2d 543, 551; People v. Gutierrez, 105 A.D.2d 754, 755; People v Long, 104 A.D.2d 902; People v. Wagman, 99 A.D.2d 519, 520; People v. Desmond, 93 A.D.2d 822). However, the defendant failed to object to the trial court's instruction, thereby not properly preserving the issue for appellate review (CPL 470.05; see, People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467; People v. Richburg, 109 A.D.2d 899; People v. Doctor, 98 A.D.2d 780). As overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt was adduced, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to grant the defendant a new trial (see, People v Gutierrez, supra, p 755; People v. Doctor, supra; People v Gonzalez, 80 A.D.2d 543).
In any event, we note that the charge, viewed in its entirety, adequately conveyed the appropriate law to the jury and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Woods, 41 N.Y.2d 279; People v. Richburg, supra, p 900; People v. Francis, 99 A.D.2d 841; People v. Doctor, supra).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or harmless. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.