The jury convicted defendant and the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, with two Justices dissenting. A Justice of the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to this Court. We agree with the Appellate Division majority ( 213 A.D.2d 967, 968) that defendant's trial counsel did not specifically and adequately preserve the appellate claims now made, to wit: (1) that the Trial Judge's supplemental instruction should have informed the jury that the incident occurred on or near Thanksgiving Day, consistent with the proof at trial, and (2) that it was error to instruct the jury that the date of the incident was a question of fact for their determination. Because the issues are beyond this Court's power to review in these circumstances and defendant's remaining claims are without merit, we affirm the order of the Appellate Division.
Before: Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for a hearing pursuant to CPL 440.30 (5) in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying without a hearing her motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment convicting her of multiple counts of sexual offenses that occurred in 1991 ( People v Wosu, 213 AD2d 967, affd 87 NY2d 935). In support of her motion, defendant contended that she was denied her right to effective assistance of counsel.
Factual questions were presented as to whether MPR engaged in market making ( see C.R.A. Realty Corp. v. Tri-South Invs., 568 F Supp 1190, 1191-1192 [SD NY 1983], affd 738 F2d 73 [2d Cir 1984]) and whether it was required to disclose that fact ( Chasins v. Smith, Barney Co., 438 F2d 1167, 1172 [2d Cir 1970]; see also Zweig v. Hearst Corp., 594 F2d 1261 [9th Cir 1979]). Thus, the court responded appropriately by reading back the pertinent testimony of expert and other witnesses and by submitting these issues for the jury's determination on the evidence ( see People v. Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 685; People v. Wosu, 213 AD2d 967, 968-969, affd 87 NY2d 935). As a general principle, the weight to be accorded expert testimony is a matter for the jury ( see Windisch v. Weiman, 161 AD2d 433, 437). The consecutive sentences for securities fraud are not illegal, nor do they violate double jeopardy.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of 16 counts of rape in the first degree, 14 counts of sodomy in the first degree, 12 counts of incest, 16 counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, six counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and seven counts of harassment. Although defendant did not object to the verdict sheet with respect to counts 33-36 of the indictment, which alleged that the crimes charged occurred during the month of November, defendant's contention that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the crimes charged in those counts occurred on Thanksgiving Day is preserved for our review ( cf., People v Wosu, 87 NY2d 935). Nevertheless, that contention lacks merit. As we noted in People v Wosu ( 213 AD2d 967, affd 87 NY2d 935, supra), the People in their oral bill of particulars and proof did not limit their allegations to Thanksgiving Day, and the exact date of the crimes charged is not a material element of those crimes. The remaining contentions raised in the brief of defendant's counsel were raised by the codefendants and have previously been rejected ( see, People v Wosu, supra; People v Eze, 217 AD2d 987, lv denied 86 NY2d 841).