Opinion
January 25, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Finnegan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to bring the issue of the propriety of an accomplice charge to the attention of the Trial Judge in a manner that pinpointed the legal question (see, People v Cobos, 57 N.Y.2d 798). Having failed to specifically request an accomplice instruction or to object to the court's failure to give such a charge, the defendant failed to preserve this claim for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; see, e.g., People v Shade, 127 A.D.2d 862, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1009; People v Digugliemo, 124 A.D.2d 743, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 826).
In any event, although we agree with the defendant that the question of the key prosecution witness's complicity in the crimes charged was a question of fact which should have been submitted to the jury for its determination in view of the different inferences which may reasonably have been drawn from the evidence adduced at trial (see, People v Vataj, 69 N.Y.2d 985, 987; People v Basch, 36 N.Y.2d 154, 157), we conclude the error is harmless since the record contains ample corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the crime so as to reasonably satisfy the jury that the accomplice was telling the truth (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Glasper, 52 N.Y.2d 970, 971; People v Pyne, 125 A.D.2d 720).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive, and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.