STATE OF N.Y. v. WILLIAMS

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) in which he claims a violation of Brady v Maryland ( 373 US 83) was properly denied by the trial court ( see People v Brown, 67 NY2d 555, 559; People v Bailey, 275 AD2d 663). To the extent the defendant's claim is based on a post-verdict investigation, it is dehors the record and therefore is not reviewable on direct appeal ( see People v Spirles, 294 AD2d 810; People v Bailey, supra).

We reject the defendant's contention that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice ( see CPL 60.22). "[T]he testimony from the accomplice witness was sufficiently corroborated by evidence from . . . independent source[s] tending to connect the defendant with the crime in such a way that the jury may be reasonably satisfied that the accomplice [was] telling the truth" ( People v Nylander, 21 AD3d 500, 501 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 629-630).