Majority
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a prosecution witness could be considered an accomplice as a matter of fact, whose testimony required corroboration. However, the subject witness was, at most, an “accessory after the fact,” whose testimony needs no corroboration under CPL 60.22 (People v Dygert, 229 AD2d 735 , 736 [1996]; People v Sacco, 199 AD2d 288 , 289 [1993]). Accordingly, an accomplice corroboration charge would not have been warranted (see People v Young, 235 AD2d 441 , 442 [1997]; People v Brown, 221 AD2d 270 , 271 [1995]; People v Montgomery, 178 AD2d 663 [1991]). Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Dygert 229 AD2d 735 at 736 p. 761
- People v. Young 235 AD2d 441 at 442 p. 761
- People v. Montgomery 178 AD2d 663 p. 761