Opinion
July 12, 1989
Appeal from the Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.
Present — Boomer, J.P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge that two of the People's witnesses were accomplices and that their testimony must be corroborated. Because defendant neither requested such a charge, nor objected to the charge as given, this issue has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Corrigan, 139 A.D.2d 918, 919, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 917). Additionally, we find no merit to defendant's contention that these witnesses were accomplices because no evidence was introduced that they participated in the preparation or perpetration of the crime, or that they counseled, induced or encouraged the crime (see, People v Lyon, 134 A.D.2d 909, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 970; People v Torello, 94 A.D.2d 857). The fact that these witnesses may have aided defendant in concealing or disposing of evidence of the crime does not make them accomplices (see, People v Cobos, 57 N.Y.2d 798, 801; People v Corrigan, supra; People v Vataj, 121 A.D.2d 756, 757, revd on other grounds 69 N.Y.2d 985).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.