Majority
—Appeal by the
Ordered that the order is affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s request to charge the jury that the identifying witness was an accomplice as a matter of law (see, CPL 60.22 [2]; People v Sweet, 78 NY2d 263 , 265; People v Tucker, 72 NY2d 849 , 850; People v Tusa, 137 AD2d 151 , 156). The Supreme Court also properly granted the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict since the People failed to provide corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant to the crime (see, CPL 60.22 [1]; People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286 ; People v Moses, 63 NY2d 299 , 305). Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Sweet 78 NY2d 263 at 265 p. 243
- People v. Tucker 72 NY2d 849 at 850 p. 243
- People v. Tusa 137 AD2d 151 at 156 p. 243
- People v. Breland 83 NY2d 286 p. 243
- People v. Moses 63 NY2d 299 at 305 p. 243