Opinion
December 14, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant alleges error in the court's refusal to charge that if the jury found the prosecution's eyewitness to be an accomplice, his testimony required corroboration. Pursuant to CPL 60.22 (2), a person is an accomplice if there is evidence that he could "reasonably be considered to have participated in * * * the offense charged". There is no such evidence at bar (see, People v Le Grand, 61 A.D.2d 815, cert denied 439 U.S. 835). Accordingly, the court's refusal to so charge was not error.
The defendant also asserts as error various comments made during the prosecutor's summation. Only one such comment was preserved for appeal. It was made in response to the defendant's counsel's remarks concerning the character of the prosecution's principal witness and, therefore, was not improper (see, People v Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 362 U.S. 912). Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.