Opinion
October 26, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a severance (see, People v Hall, 169 A.D.2d 778, 778-779; People v Pierce, 141 A.D.2d 864, 865). Joinder was proper under CPL 200.20 (2) (c) since the counts of robbery and attempted burglary in the first degrees, although based upon different criminal transactions, are defined by the same or similar statutory provisions (see, CPL 200.20 [c]; People v Edwards, 160 A.D.2d 720, 721). Specifically, each crime carries the "display" element, whereby a perpetrator must have "display[ed] what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm" (see, Penal Law § 140.30; § 160.15 [4]). Once these offenses were properly joined, it was incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate good cause as to why separate trials were required (see, CPL 200.20). The defendant failed to satisfy this burden (see, People v Hall, supra; People v Nelson, 133 A.D.2d 470, 471; People v Mack, 111 A.D.2d 186, 188).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 91 A.D.2d 562, 563, affd 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v Cobbs, 161 A.D.2d 723), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of attempted burglary in the first degree (see, People v Lopez, 73 N.Y.2d 214, 220; People v Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374).
The defendant's remaining contentions with respect to his conviction under Indictment No. 1280/89 are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit.
In light of our determination, there is no basis for vacatur of the defendant's plea under Indictment No. N10322/89 (see, People v Clark, 45 N.Y.2d 432). Eiber, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.