Judgment affirmed.
The court's determination that the police did not intentionally deprive defendant of access to his family in an effort to deny him his right to counsel is supported by the evidence (see, People v Fuschino, 59 N.Y.2d 91).
After viewing the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must do (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, reh denied 444 U.S. 890), we conclude that any rational trier of fact could have rejected defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Davis, 111 A.D.2d 252). The prosecution's witnesses established that after a fight was broken up among defendant, the victim and the victim's friend, defendant went to his home at 329A Crown Street and obtained a gun, stating that he would "kill them". He went down the street, and found the victim standing on the stoop of 299 Crown Street ringing the doorbell. As the victim tried to gain entrance to the house, defendant shot him twice, once in the back. The prosecutor presented other evidence corroborating the testimony given by an eyewitness. The jury chose to believe the prosecution's witnesses, and, in the absence of any indication that the witnesses' testimony was incredible as a matter of law, the verdict was proper (see, Jackson v Virginia, supra; People v Davis, supra). Lazer, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.