Opinion
September 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.).
The trial court properly denied defendant's motion for severance. At trial, the co-defendants and defendant all claimed to be purchasers, not sellers. Although co-defendant Sanchez's testimony that defendant Abreu was the sole drug seller is in direct conflict with Abreu's testimony, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance. Mere hostility between co-defendants, differences in their trial strategies or inconsistencies in their defenses will not, without more, require a severance. While, as the People properly concede, the testimony of co-defendant Sanchez was at its core in irreconcilable conflict with that of defendant Abreu, severance was nevertheless properly denied because defendant failed to establish that there was a significant danger that this conflict alone would lead the jury to infer his guilt ( People v Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 184). While recognizing that the facts in defendant Abreu and co-defendant Nesbitt's appeals are not exactly the same inasmuch as Sanchez's testimony against Abreu is more damaging, we see no reason to depart on this appeal from our prior determination on co-defendant Nesbitt's appeal ( 198 A.D.2d 33, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 900) that the conflicting testimony of the various co-defendants as to who was the seller does not mandate a severance.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.