Opinion
March 13, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial when the court failed to provide a second Spanish interpreter during the direct testimony of the complainant. A court interpreter translated the proceedings for the defendant, who spoke Spanish. The same interpreter translated for the benefit of the jury when the complainant testified in Spanish. The court declined to provide a second interpreter to assist the defendant during the complainant's direct testimony, but permitted defense counsel and the defendant to consult with the interpreter prior to and during the cross-examination of the complainant. The defense counsel voiced no objection to this procedure and there is no evidence in the record that he was in any way hampered in his ability to communicate with his client. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that the defendant was unable to understand the complainant's testimony or the proceedings. Under these circumstances, we find that the defendant was provided with a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel and to assist in his own defense (see, e.g., People v. Rodriguez, 165 A.D.2d 699; People v. Marrero, 156 A.D.2d 141; cf., People v. DeArmas, 106 A.D.2d 659). Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.