Opinion
September 27, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the prosecution failed to prove that he acted in concert with the codefendant. At the close of the People's case, and at the close of the defendant's case, the defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal due to the prosecution's failure to prove a prima facie case. However, since the defendant did not raise this issue during those motions, he has not preserved this issue for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v Johnson, 185 A.D.2d 247; People v Asaro, 182 A.D.2d 823). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial 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 beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted in concert with the codefendant in the attempted robbery and shooting of the decedent. 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).
The defendant's challenge to the trial court's evidentiary ruling precluding the defense from eliciting on direct examination of the arresting officer the exculpatory oral statement made by the defendant is without merit. Since the arresting officer testified as to the contents of the defendant's oral statement during the People's direct case and the defendant was given the opportunity to cross-examine the officer, the arresting officer's testimony on this subject during the defendant's direct case would have been cumulative. Furthermore, the trial court correctly concluded that the testimony was inadmissible hearsay (see, People v McDaniel, 168 A.D.2d 640, 641; People v Cuevas, 138 A.D.2d 620, 621). This was not a situation where the trial court improperly permitted the introduction into evidence of an inculpatory statement, but precluded inquiry into the exculpatory portions of the same statement (cf., People v Rodriguez, 188 A.D.2d 566).
We also reject the defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the defense counsel's performance in its entirety we conclude that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see, People v Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.