Opinion
December 19, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hayes, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's present attack upon certain portions of the trial court's charge is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05; People v DeJesus, 132 A.D.2d 564, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 799). In any event, his contention is without merit as the court's instructions adequately conveyed the proper standards for evaluating the issue of accessorial liability (see, e.g., People v Griffin, 132 A.D.2d 670, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 955; People v Newton, 120 A.D.2d 751, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 759; People v Compitiello, 118 A.D.2d 720, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 941), and accurately emphasized the jury's duty to evaluate the evidence as to the defendant and his codefendant separately. Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.