Opinion
March 16, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish his guilt as an accessory to the crimes committed by the codefendant Robert Wooley. We disagree. 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. The defendant and Wooley were friends and the evidence elicited at trial shows that defendant assumed a purposeful and necessary role in the planned commission of the crimes. It is clear that the defendant shared a "`community of purpose'" with Wooley (People v Allah, 71 N.Y.2d 830, 832; People v Herring, 149 A.D.2d 731).
We conclude that the court properly denied the defendant's pretrial motion for a trial separate from that of the codefendant Wooley. When, as here, the proof against the defendants is supplied by the same evidence, only the most cogent reasons warrant separate trials. We find that the defendant has failed to advance sufficient reasons to warrant a separate trial (see, People v Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 183; People v Watts, 159 A.D.2d 740). We also note that it was here appropriate to direct a joint bench and jury trial (see, People v Amato, 173 A.D.2d 714, cert denied ___ US ___, 112 S Ct 935; People v Wallace, 153 A.D.2d 59). Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.