Opinion
April 2, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The testimony of an accomplice established that on May 27, 1987, the defendant, along with other youths, broke into the complaining witness's home at approximately 9:00 A.M. and stole a stereo system and other items. The prosecution also presented evidence of the defendant's fingerprints recovered from a stereo cabinet and other objects located in her home. This evidence independently corroborated the accomplice's testimony and tended to connect the defendant to the crime (see, CPL 60.22; People v. Donovan, 59 N.Y.2d 834; People v. Volpe, 116 A.D.2d 609).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was 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 (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's contention that the court should have charged that the accomplice was an interested witness as a matter of law, as it had charged that the defendant occupied that status, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, any error was harmless as the accomplice charge contained much stronger language regarding the need to carefully assess the credibility of an accomplice (People v. Tabora, 139 A.D.2d 540; People v. Ellis, 150 A.D.2d 484).
The sentence imposed was appropriate under the circumstances of this case (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.