Opinion
January 23, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant's contention that the People improperly joined the separate offenses under one indictment. The People opposed the defendant's pretrial severance motion on the ground that although the alleged crimes were committed in separate locations and on different dates, CPL 200.20 (2) (c) permits such a joinder under a single indictment because the charges are "defined by the same or similar statutory provisions and consequently are the same or similar in law". Thus, even though the indictment alleged that the acts were connected and formed part of a common scheme and plan, the defendant was on notice when his motion for severance was denied that the joinder was pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2) (c), and that the People were not proceeding to trial to prove a common scheme and plan.
Moreover, severance under CPL 200.20 (3) is discretionary and denial of the pretrial motion was proper since the defendant did not show good cause or the manner in which the interest of justice demanded that the counts be severed (see, People v Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1).
The defendant's second contention, that the prosecutor's opening statement was legally insufficient, is without merit. The opening statement gave every detail required in an opening. As the trial court correctly noted of the prosecutor: "He can't say anymore" (see, People v Kurtz, 51 N.Y.2d 380, 384; see also, People v Collins, 136 A.D.2d 720).
We also do not find the defendant's sentence to be excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Rubin, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.