Opinion
December 20, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Putnam County (Braatz, 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 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
While the defendant contends that the court erred in admitting two audio tapes into evidence at trial, we conclude that a proper foundation had been laid for their admission (see, People v Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 527-528; see also, People v Sealy, 106 A.D.2d 479) and thus we decline to disturb the court's exercise of its discretion (see, People v Morgan, 175 A.D.2d 930, 932). On a related note, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the jury to use a transcript of the conversation recorded on these tapes while the tapes were being played (see, People v Tapia, 114 A.D.2d 983, 984; see also, People v Robinson, 158 A.D.2d 628, 629).
Finally, the defendant's claim that the verdict is repugnant in that it represents an improper compromise on the question of guilt is unpreserved for appellate review in light of the fact that no protest to the verdict was registered until after the jury had been dismissed (see, People v Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745, 746; People v Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048, 1050; People v James, 112 A.D.2d 380, 381; see also, CPL 470.05). In any event, the verdict is not repugnant as a matter of law (see, People v Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 7). On these facts, it cannot be said that this verdict was the result of an improper compromise on the question of guilt (see, People v Montgomery, 116 A.D.2d 669, 670; see also, People v Dugarm, 49 A.D.2d 674, 675). O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.