Opinion
December 18, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was not adequately advised of the behavior underlying the fourth count of the indictment charging him with endangering the welfare of a child is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v Weldon, 191 A.D.2d 662). In any event, the indictment, as supplemented by the bill of particulars, provided the defendant with sufficiently specific information as to the manner, time, and place of the crime charged ( see, People v Morris, 61 N.Y.2d 290; People v Nichols, 193 A.D.2d 764).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of endangering the welfare of a child, based on the claim that the complainant's testimony was not corroborated, is not preserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v Santos, 86 N.Y.2d 869). In any event, corroboration is required only in sexual offense cases in which the victim is incapable of consent because of mental defect or incapacity, a situation which was not shown to exist here ( see, People v King, 162 A.D.2d 473; People v Jones, 133 A.D.2d 972). 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit. Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.