Opinion
October 15, 1996.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered November 15, 1993, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Meyerson, J.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and statements made by him to law enforcement officials.
Before: Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Florio, JJ.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's assertions, the court's supplemental charge on manslaughter in the second degree was a meaningful and complete response to the jury's question ( see, People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, cert denied 459 US 847) and correctly set forth what constitutes reckless conduct under an acting in concert theory ( see, People v Licitra, 47 NY2d 554, 558-559). Further, the court did not err in denying the defendant's request for a missing witness charge as to Tameka Ingram, the defendant's girlfriend ( see, People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532, 536). The People adequately demonstrated that Ingram was not under their control ( see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 428; People v Keller, 175 AD2d 312). Any error committed by the prosecution in failing to properly notify the defendant of a prior lineup identification by a civilian witness was harmless in light of the otherwise overwhelming evidence that the defendant was at the scene, armed, and a participant in the events that led to the death of the victim ( see, CPL 710.30; People v Taylor, 155 AD2d 630; People v Reed, 154 AD2d 629).
The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.