Opinion
December 28, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must, we find that it is legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction of the crimes charged (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the trial court's denial of his motion for a severance was not error. Such a motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its decision will not be overturned absent a showing of an abuse of discretion (see, CPL 200.40; see, People v Owens, 22 N.Y.2d 93). No such abuse has been shown here. Inasmuch as the codefendant testified at trial, the admission of his custodial statement at the joint trial with the defendant, which would ordinarily be inadmissible hearsay against the defendant, did not deny the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation (cf., Bruton v United States, 391 U.S. 123; cf., People v Anthony, 24 N.Y.2d 696). Furthermore, the defendant was not denied his right to a fair trial by the denial of the motion since there was not a substantial difference in the quantity and quality of evidence which the People had with respect to the defendant and the codefendant (see, People v Snyder, 246 N.Y. 491, 497; People v Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 U.S. 905; People v Kampshoff, 53 A.D.2d 325, cert denied 433 U.S. 911). Moreover, the evidence adduced at trial did not establish that the defendant's position was completely antagonistic to that of his codefendant such that the joinder of their trials, which arose out of the same circumstances and crimes, denied him a fair trial (see, People v Papa, 47 A.D.2d 902; cf., People v La Belle, 18 N.Y.2d 405).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Niehoff, J.P., Weinstein, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.