Opinion
May 4, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
We find that the trial court properly submitted to the jury the issue of whether Janis Reikmanis (a construction supervisor who testified to his unwillingness to pass money to the defendant) was an accomplice as a matter of fact. This construction supervisor's statement that he had feared losing his job if he did not give the defendant a bribe for each field inspection created a situation whereby different inferences could reasonably have been drawn as to whether Mr. Reikmanis had had the necessary intent to participate in the crime charged, and the question of his complicity in the crime was properly left for the jury to determine (CPL 60.22; People v. Basch, 36 N.Y.2d 154; People v. Baker, 46 A.D.2d 377; People v. Wheatman, 31 N.Y.2d 12; see also, People v. Court, 43 N.Y.2d 817).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Eiber, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.