Opinion
January 23, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction. Two witnesses placed the defendant in the vicinity of the crime. One of the witnesses observed the defendant leaving the shop clutching money. A third witness, moreover, heard the defendant confess to the killing. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
Further, upon review of trial counsel's performance in conjunction with the law, the evidence and circumstances of the case (see, People v Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708-709; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147; People v Clerkin, 144 A.D.2d 684), we find that the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel to which he was constitutionally entitled.
Since this case involved both direct and circumstantial evidence, a special instruction regarding the latter was not required (People v Ruiz, 52 N.Y.2d 929; People v Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375). In any event, the circumstantial evidence charge delivered by the court, read as a whole, adequately stated the principles of law necessary to permit the jury to properly evaluate the evidence (People v Band, 125 A.D.2d 683, 687). It is of no consequence that the court denied the defendant's request to supplement the charge by employing the term "moral certainty" (see, People v Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022; People v Morris, 36 N.Y.2d 877).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.