Opinion
July 6, 1987
Appeal from the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The trial court did not err in refusing to permit a defense witness to testify as to a self-serving statement the defendant made to him when she was aware that she was under investigation in connection with the instant offenses, regardless of whether that testimony was being offered to rebut the testimony of a prosecution witness or to corroborate the defendant's own testimony. Nor did the court err in denying the defendant's request to charge that Mark Miller, a prosecution witness, was an accomplice as a matter of law, since it cannot be said that on the evidence the jury could reasonably reach no other conclusion than that Miller participated in the offense charged or an offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged (see, CPL 60.22; People v. Cobos, 57 N.Y.2d 798; People v. Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179).
The defendant's contention that the verdict is repugnant has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745, rearg denied 57 N.Y.2d 674; People v. Hines, 120 A.D.2d 676, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 757; People v. James, 112 A.D.2d 380), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice.
The sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present which would warrant disturbance of the sentencing court's exercise of discretion (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.