Opinion
November 24, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence in this case does not support the conclusion that an uncalled witness was under the control of the prosecution at the time of trial. Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to a missing witness charge as to that particular witness (see, People v Watkins, 67 A.D.2d 717). Thus, the court did not err in refusing to charge the jury as to the failure of the prosecution to call a particular eyewitness.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved (see, People v Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745), or without merit (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.