Contrary to defendant’s contentions, the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain all the charges in the indictment as well as to support the consequent conviction. The record reveals that the defendant and his codefendant purposely entered the subway car where complainant and his friends were seated.
We further find that the trial court did not err in refusing the requested charge concerning circumstantial evidence. Since the prosecution’s case was not wholly circumstantial in nature, but rested in large part upon direct evidence, the court’s refusal to give the requested charge was not erroneous (see, People v Ruiz, 52 NY2d 929; People v Gerard, 50 NY2d 392; People v Hollis, 73 AD2d 994).
Nor do we find persuasive defendant’s claim that he was deprived of a fair trial. The acrimony and disruptions which occurred during trial were precipitated by the defendant’s counsel and therefore defendant may not be heard to complain that he was prejudiced by the atmosphere in the courtroom (see, People v Gonzalez, 38 NY2d 208, 210-211; People v Schneider, 100 AD2d 733).
We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Niehoff, and Lawrence, JJ., concur.