Opinion
August 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (George D. Covington, J.).
The trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying severance in this matter, where the prosecutor indicated that defendant's statement would not be introduced on the People's direct case; where proof against each defendant was supplied by the same evidence; and where the defense raised by defendant and the codefendant was identical (People v Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 183). The trial court also properly precluded introduction of those portions of defendant's statement that were inculpatory with respect to the codefendant (Bruton v United States, 391 U.S. 123), but permitted cross-examination of defendant through the use of only those portions of the statement that bore directly upon defendant's testimony in connection with his own involvement in the crimes charged (People v Rivera, 58 A.D.2d 147, affd on opn below 45 N.Y.2d 989). The prosecutor's use of portions of defendant's statement to impeach his credibility did not entitle defendant to introduce the entire statement (see, People v Ramos, 70 N.Y.2d 639).
We have reviewed defendant's additional claims of error regarding the trial court's evidentiary rulings and find no abuse of discretion (People v Hill, 161 A.D.2d 506, 507, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 858). Nor do we find an abuse of discretion in sentencing (People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302).
Defendant's additional claims of error were previously rejected by this Court in deciding the appeal of codefendant Mario Villegas (People v Villegas, 190 A.D.2d 593).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.