Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the County Court properly instructed the jury as to the law regarding the defense of justification. For the court to have repeated after each count and each lesser included offense that the defense of justification applied to it would have confused the jury and prevented it from properly exercising its function (see, United States v. MacQueen, 596 F.2d 76; United States v. Persico, 349 F.2d 6; see also, People v. Giles, 60 A.D.2d 635).

We also reject the defendant's contention that the prosecution's delay in providing him with a witness's statement and disclosing to him the results of the victim's urine tests, which revealed the presence of cocaine, constituted a violation of the principles enunciated in Brady v. Maryland ( 373 U.S. 83). The defense had ample opportunity to utilize this evidence effectively (see, People v. Simmons, 36 N.Y.2d 126; People v Bolling, 157 A.D.2d 733). The People disclosed this evidence to the defense on the day before they opened their direct case. The defense had the opportunity to call, and did call, a witness who had personal knowledge of the statement, and did utilize the forensic report to cross-examine the forensic expert. There was no indication that earlier disclosure would have affected the nature of the evidence or altered the defendant's trial strategy (see, People v. Clark, 89 A.D.2d 820, cert denied 459 U.S. 1090).

The defendant's contention that the County Court committed reversible error by failing to charge the jury on the voluntariness of his confession is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant did not object to the introduction in evidence of his confession at the trial, did not contest the voluntariness of his confession at the trial, did not request the court to instruct the jury on this point, and did not object to the charge as given (see, People v. Cerrato, 24 N.Y.2d 1, cert denied 397 U.S. 940; People v. Cefaro, 23 N.Y.2d 283; People v Faber, 83 A.D.2d 883).

The trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to set aside the jury's verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3) on the basis of newly-discovered evidence. The evidence offered in support of that motion would have served only to impeach or contradict evidence adduced at the trial (see, People v. Salemi, 309 N.Y. 208, 215-216, cert denied 350 U.S. 950; People v. Haddad, 133 A.D.2d 124).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v. Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817; People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.