Opinion
May 4, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the warrant authorizing a search of her residence was not supported by probable cause. The record reveals that the warrant was obtained after the police submitted an affidavit from a participant in the crime who also spoke with the issuing Magistrate and whose account of the crime was based on personal knowledge and was independently verified by police investigation. As such, the uncontroverted evidence adduced at the Mapp hearing clearly supports the court's conclusion that probable cause existed for the issuance of the warrant (see, People v. Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225; People v. Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549; People v. Lentini, 120 A.D.2d 548, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1054; People v. Marinelli, 100 A.D.2d 597).
Similarly unpersuasive is the defendant's contention that she was denied a fair trial by the court's Sandoval ruling. The court conducted the requisite balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect in resolving the Sandoval issue (see, People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236), and we discern no abuse of discretion in its ruling (see, e.g., People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1056). Additionally, we note that the trial court correctly treated the issue of whether a prosecution witness was an accomplice as a factual question for the jury's determination. The court's refusal to charge the jury with respect to accessorial liability was likewise proper since the issue involved here was conspiracy rather than imputed criminal liability for acting in concert.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.