Opinion
July 3, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.).
The evidence against defendant was legally sufficient and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's credibility determinations.
Defendant's current claim that he was unduly prejudiced by admission of testimony by a People's witness regarding that witness's own bad acts is unpreserved due to the lack of appropriate and timely objection, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it to be without merit. Since the witness was testifying pursuant to a cooperation agreement, the prosecutor properly elicited on direct examination the circumstances surrounding the witness' motivation for cooperating ( see, United States v. Rothman, 463 F.2d 488, cert deniedd 409 U.S. 956; see also, People v. Minsky, 227 N.Y. 94, 98), and defendant utilized the testimony to attack the witness's credibility. Further, the bad acts testimony did not implicate defendant ( compare, People v. Stanard, 32 N.Y.2d 143, 147), and the court properly instructed the jurors that the testimony was admitted solely to assist them in evaluating the witness's credibility.
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.