Opinion
December 7, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court erred in refusing his request to charge the affirmative defense to felony murder (see, Penal Law § 125.25). We disagree. There was no reasonable view of the evidence which established the elements of the defense (see, Penal Law § 125.25; People v Fells, 121 A.D.2d 394; People v Alston, 104 A.D.2d 653, 654). Moreover, the defendant admitted on cross-examination that he knew that another, as then unapprehended participant, had been armed. Hence, he does not satisfy the statutory criteria set forth in Penal Law § 125.25 (3) (c).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see also, People v Burch, 188 A.D.2d 479 [decided herewith]). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.