Opinion
1997-04151
Submitted January 11, 2002.
February 6, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered April 10, 1997, convicting him of conspiracy in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
James Kousouros, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Monique Ferrell of counsel), for respondent.
Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
During the trial, a juror became "unable to continue serving by reason of illness" (CPL 270.35[a]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court conducted "a reasonably thorough inquiry and recit[ed] on the record * * * the facts and reasons" for discharging the juror (People v. Page, 72 N.Y.2d 69, 73; see, People v. O'Connor, 222 A.D.2d 705).
The defendant's contentions that the Supreme Court committed reversible error when it referred a witness's accomplice status to the jury for resolution as a question of fact, and that the prosecution failed to present sufficient non-accomplice testimony to corroborate that witness's testimony, are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the defendant's contentions are without merit. "[W]here different inferences can be reasonably drawn from the evidence produced at trial, the question of whether a particular person is an accomplice is a question of fact for the jury" (People v. Jeffries, 122 A.D.2d 281, 282; see, People v. Cobos, 57 N.Y.2d 798; People v. Tusa, 137 A.D.2d 151). The Supreme Court properly charged the jury on that issue, and the witness's testimony was sufficiently corroborated (see, People v. Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624).
After consulting with the defendant, the defense counsel effectively waived the defendant's right to a public trial by consenting, in his presence, to the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover officers (see, People v. Miller, 257 N.Y. 54; People v. Sevencan, 258 A.D.2d 485; People v. Daughtry, 242 A.D.2d 731; People v. Espejo, 237 A.D.2d 458).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
KRAUSMAN, J.P., LUCIANO, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.