Opinion
December 8, 1997
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly determined that Natalie Tears was not an accomplice as a matter of law and properly left it for the jury to determine whether Tears was an accomplice (see, CPL 60.22; People v. Vataj, 69 N.Y.2d 985; People v. Basch, 36 N.Y.2d 154; People v. Young, 235 A.D.2d 441).
The accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, CPL 60.22; People v. Breland, 83 N.Y.2d 286; People v. Moses, 63 N.Y.2d 299).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit (see, People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.