Opinion
March 29, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Bookson, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), defendant's guilt as an accomplice to a chain snatching committed in the Times Square area was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It was the jury's function to evaluate the testimony, consider inconsistencies and to generally determine the facts (People v Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196). In that regard, we are unpersuaded that the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. Moreover, since this case was based upon direct evidence, there was no requirement that the court give a circumstantial evidence charge (People v Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022). In any event, defendant never requested such instruction. Finally, defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's comments on summation are unpreserved as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; People v Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. However, were we to consider this issue in the interests of justice, we would find it to be without merit.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Molonas, Asch and Ellerin, JJ.