Opinion
May 1, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court erred in failing to give an accomplice corroboration charge to the jury with respect to the testimony of a prosecution witness. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant neither requested such a charge nor objected to the charge on this ground (see, CPL 470.05; People v Winbush, 206 A.D.2d 556; People v Polhill, 190 A.D.2d 692; see also, People v James, 75 N.Y.2d 874).
We decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction here as the record reveals that the failure to request this charge was a deliberate trial tactic (see, People v Mahan, 195 A.D.2d 881; People v Walker, 87 A.D.2d 725). Moreover, reversal in the interest of justice is mandated only when it is apparent that the case against the defendant rests substantially on the testimony of the accomplice and the proof of the defendant's guilt is less than overwhelming (see, People v Polhill, supra, 190 A.D.2d 692; People v Strawder, 124 A.D.2d 758). Here, there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt which was independent of the alleged accomplice's testimony. Sullivan, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.