Opinion
December 23, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The record reveals that sufficient evidence was adduced at trial to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Questions of credibility are within the province of the jury (see, e.g., People v Simmons, 112 A.D.2d 173; People v De Tore, 34 N.Y.2d 199, cert. denied sub. nom. Wedra v New York, 419 U.S. 1025) and we find no basis upon this record to disturb the jury's resolution of these issues. Nor does the record reveal that the court's pretrial Sandoval ruling was an abuse of discretion (see, e.g., People v Santarelli, 49 N.Y.2d 241).
The issue of the trial court's failure to give a missing witness charge has not been preserved for our review. The request for such a charge made by counsel for codefendant Simmons does not preserve this issue upon this appeal in the absence of some indication that defendant's counsel joined cocounsel in this request (see, e.g., People v Teeter, 47 N.Y.2d 1002, 1003; People v Foster, 100 A.D.2d 200, 207, mod on other grounds 64 N.Y.2d 1144, cert. denied ___ US ___, 106 S Ct 166). In any event, a missing witness charge was not warranted here (see, e.g., People v Buckler, 39 N.Y.2d 895).
We have previously examined the conduct of the prosecutor during summation upon the appeal of codefendant Simmons and found that the alleged errors were unpreserved by Simmons and did not warrant reversal in the interest of justice (People v Simmons, supra). Although this appeal raises additional claims directed at the impropriety of the prosecutor's summation, they are also unpreserved and in any event do not warrant reversal.
We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.