Opinion
June 2, 1989
Appeal from the Ontario County Court, Reed, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Viewed in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence of defendant's accessorial conduct is legally sufficient to support her conviction (see, Penal Law § 20.00; People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428). Her knowing participation in the criminal activity provided a reasonable basis from which the jury could infer that she acted with the requisite mental culpability (see, People v. McClary, 138 A.D.2d 413; cf., People v. Letizia, 122 A.D.2d 555, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 814). We also find that the testimony of the accomplices is sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of nonaccomplice witnesses and by defendant's written confession, which was received in evidence (see, CPL 60.22; People v. Moses, 63 N.Y.2d 299). Finally, both the Sandoval ruling and the court's instructions to the jury were proper.