Opinion
February 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County, Calabretta, J., Beldock, J.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court committed error by failing to charge the jury that one of the prosecution witnesses was an accomplice as a matter of law whose testimony required corroboration in order to support a conviction. Since the defendant failed to specifically request an accomplice instruction or to object to the trial court's charge as given, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Green, 185 A.D.2d 992; People v Coico, 176 A.D.2d 339). Reversal in the interest of justice is unwarranted. As we stated in People v Strawder ( 124 A.D.2d 758, 759), "absent a request by a defendant [for an accomplice charge] reversal in the interest of justice is mandated only when it is apparent that the case against [the] defendant rests substantially on the testimony of an accomplice and proof of guilt against the defendant is less than overwhelming" (see also, People v Ramos, 68 A.D.2d 748; People v Minarich, 46 N.Y.2d 970). In this case, there was evidence which was independent of the alleged accomplice's testimony, and the evidence as a whole established the defendant's guilt by overwhelming evidence (see also, People v Glasper, 52 N.Y.2d 970; People v Martin, 169 A.D.2d 784, 785; cf., People v Gonzales, 159 A.D.2d 721; People v Strawder, supra).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.