May 9, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that his case should have been severed from the codefendant's case because of "antagonistic defenses" is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant neither submitted a written severance motion nor otherwise presented this claim to the trial court (see, CPL 470.05; People v McGee, 68 N.Y.2d 328, 333-334; People v. Rogers, 156 A.D.2d 598, 600). In any event, the defendant's and codefendant's cases were joinable as a matter of law as they were jointly charged with every offense alleged in the indictment, and all of the offenses charged were based upon the same transaction (see, CPL 200.40; People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 183). The defendant did not demonstrate that his defense was so antagonistic to that of his codefendant so as to warrant separate trials (see, People v Mahboubian, supra; People v. Acevedo, 192 A.D.2d 614; People v Hikel, 180 A.D.2d 820; People v. Rogers, supra).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.