Opinion
December 9, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we find that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the conviction. The issue raised concerning the complainant's credibility as result of being hung over after a day and night of drinking was properly placed before the jury whose determination must be accorded deference (see, People v Sweet, 132 A.D.2d 795), and we perceive no basis for disturbing its finding.
The codefendant's statements were appropriately redacted at trial to remove any incriminating reference to defendant (see, Bruton v United States, 391 U.S. 123), they were not facially incriminating and proper limiting instructions were provided by the court. Therefore, their use at trial did not violate defendant's constitutional rights (People v Marcus, 137 A.D.2d 723, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 862). The mere fact that the codefendant's first statement might have supplied some additional details about the robbery does not render it unacceptable where, as here, it did not specifically incriminate defendant and the jury was appropriately charged (supra).
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find they do not warrant any modification of the judgment.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.