Opinion
November 24, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford A. Scott, J.).
In affirming the conviction of codefendant Anthony Taylor ( 184 A.D.2d 218, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 897), this Court concluded that the kidnapping charge did not merge with the robbery charges, and there is no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present appeal (see also, People v Gonzalez, 80 N.Y.2d 146). We reject defendant's contention that the court failed to provide an appropriate instruction on accomplice liability or corroboration of accomplice testimony.
Defendant failed to preserve any challenge to the People's summation by appropriate objection (CPL 470.05), and no basis exists to review in the interest of justice.
During cross-examination of a prosecution witness with respect to the disposition of Rockland County charges against the witness, defendant opened the door to evidence in rebuttal that the witness was not induced to testify in the present case (see, People v Cherry, 161 A.D.2d 185, 186-187, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 854).
By failing to proceed pursuant to CPL article 440, defendant's appellate challenge to the effectiveness of his trial counsel is in large part based upon an inadequate record (compare, People v Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852, with People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998). To the extent that the record is reviewable, it does not show that defendant was deprived of meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). On occasions when counsel was not present for proceedings, we find no error in joint representation by co-counsel with defendant's consent (see, People v Macerola, 47 N.Y.2d 257, 264).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.