Opinion
December 12, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Mackston, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the People's motion, prior to trial, to amend the indictment (see, CPL 200.70; see, People v Hood, 194 A.D.2d 556). The defendant was charged with various crimes stemming from the theft of a 1986 Ford van, yet the indictment mistakenly alleged the vehicle to be a 1989 Ford van (see, People v Goodman, 156 A.D.2d 713). The amendment to correct this inaccuracy did not alter the theory of the People's case (see, People v Johnson, 163 A.D.2d 613), nor are we persuaded that the defendant suffered any legitimate prejudice as a result (see, People v Hartman, 123 A.D.2d 883).
Likewise, the court correctly charged the jury with respect to the permissive inference of guilt that may be drawn against an accused found to be in recent and exclusive possession of stolen property (see, People v Galbo, 218 N.Y. 283; People v Cole, 185 A.D.2d 893). The court also properly denied the defendant's request for a missing witness charge since his request was untimely (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424; People v Woodford, 200 A.D.2d 644; People v Catoe, 181 A.D.2d 905; People v Randall, 177 A.D.2d 661), and the People demonstrated that the uncalled witness was not under their control (see, People v Foust, 192 A.D.2d 718; People v Goddard, 150 A.D.2d 794).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.