Opinion
June 15, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims, inter alia, that the court erred in failing to charge the jury that pursuant to CPL 60.50 they could not find him guilty solely on the basis of his statements, but that "additional proof" was required (see, CPL 60.50). Since the defendant never requested such a charge, however, his claim is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, any error was harmless. It is well settled that the purpose of CPL 60.50 is to avoid the danger that the defendant may be convicted of a crime which, in fact, had not been committed (see, People v. Reade, 13 N.Y.2d 42). In the case at bar, the undisputed medical testimony of the pathologist established that the victim died as a result of one of three gunshot wounds, which clearly satisfied the "additional proof" requirement (see, People v. Louis, 1 N.Y.2d 137, 141; People v Hamilton, 121 A.D.2d 395).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.