Opinion
January 22, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Herold, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During voir dire, a prospective juror stated that he would like to hear the defendant "testify to hear the other side of the story". However, upon a full inquiry by the court, the juror assured the court that, if so instructed, he would not consider the fact that the defendant did not testify at trial in arriving at a verdict. Under such circumstances, the court did not err in refusing to excuse the juror for cause (see, People v Shipman, 156 A.D.2d 494; see also, People v Williams, 63 N.Y.2d 882; cf., People v Blyden, 55 N.Y.2d 73).
Testimony concerning the surveillance by the police of the defendant and his accomplices in the period immediately before the robbery was relevant to the material issue of the defendant's accessorial liability and was therefore properly admitted by the court (see, People v McCallop, 159 A.D.2d 731; People v Davis, 151 A.D.2d 596).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and O'Brien, JJ., concur.