Opinion
November 27, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's supplemental instruction relating to certain evidence adduced at trial was proper. The instruction was responsive to the jury's inquiry and properly indicated to the jury that it was solely within its province to resolve disputed factual issues (cf., People v Bryson, 118 A.D.2d 791). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find no error in the trial court's instructions with respect to the concept of acting in concert (see, 1 CJI[NY] 20.10, at 777; People v Shakur, 144 A.D.2d 600) or in connection with the requisite intent (see, 1 CJI[NY] 9.31, at 502; People v Mandrachio, 79 A.D.2d 278). Reviewing the charge as a whole, the jury was properly instructed in the correct rules to apply in evaluating the evidence (see, People v Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, cert denied 459 U.S. 847; People v Hall, 82 A.D.2d 838).
Further, the defendant claims that the trial court did not comply with his request for a charge instructing the jury that a police officer's testimony must be evaluated in the same manner as the testimony of any other witness. Although such a charge should generally be given (see, 1 CJI[NY] 7.08, at 277), under the circumstances in this case, it was not reversible error to fail to do so (see, People v Brown, 109 A.D.2d 746). In this regard, it should be noted that the testimony of one of the police officers was partially favorable to the defendant (see, People v Brown, supra).
We have considered the other contentions raised by the defendant and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.