Opinion
February 17, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.).
Defendant's argument that the evidence was not sufficient because it was based upon uncorroborated accomplice testimony is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find it to be without merit. Corroboration was supplied by the testimony of one of the victims, including her narrative of defendant's suspicious statements just days before the robbery, and the testimony of another witness, who was only an accomplice in the robbery of which defendant was acquitted (see, People v. Breland, 83 N.Y.2d 286, 292-293; People v. Dellamore, 182 A.D.2d 596, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 928).
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's credibility determinations.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. The record fails to support defendant's claim that the sentencing court gave impermissible consideration to the 1994 crime of which defendant was acquitted (compare, People v. Harrison, 188 A.D.2d 374, 375, affd 82 N.Y.2d 693, with People v. Maula, 163 A.D.2d 180).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.