PEOPLE v. PLAYER

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).

The defendant's contention that the County Court should have instructed the jury that three key witnesses were accomplices as a matter of law, with the result that their testimony required corroboration, is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; cf. People v. Napolitano, 215 AD2d 782). In any event, the County Court properly determined that the witness Maurice Brown was not an accomplice for purposes of the corroboration requirement. "[H]e was, at most, an `accessory after the fact,' whose testimony needed no corroboration under CPL 60.22" ( People v. Kingsberry, 11 AD3d 561, 562, lv denied 3 NY3d 758, quoting People v. Dygert, 229 AD2d 735, 736; People v. Sacco, 199 AD2d 288, 289). The County Court also properly submitted the issue of whether the two other key witnesses were accomplices to the jury as a question of fact since different inferences regarding their complicity could reasonably be drawn from the evidence at trial ( see People v. Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 147; People v. Cobos, 57 NY2d 798; People v. Jeffries, 122 AD2d 281).

The County Court properly refused to charge the jury on unlawful imprisonment in the first degree as a lesser-included offense of the kidnapping charges. Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree is not a lesser-included offense of kidnapping in the first degree or kidnapping in the second degree ( see People v. Ahedo, 229 AD2d 588; People v. Fonseca, 229 AD2d 591; cf. People v. Linderberry, 222 AD2d 731, 733-734; People v. Tillman, 69 AD2d 975, 976).

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.