DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant did not preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court erred in failing to charge the jury with respect to the accomplice-corroboration requirement of CPL 60.22. He neither requested such a charge nor specifically objected to the failure of the Supreme Court to give it ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Nichilo, 274 A.D.2d 592; People v. Odiot, 242 A.D.2d 308). In any event, under the circumstances, no accomplice-corroboration charge was warranted under CPL 60.22 ( see People v. Dygert, 229 A.D.2d 735; People v. Sacco, 199 A.D.2d 288; People v. Dagnone, 187 A.D.2d 604; People v. Brazeau, 162 A.D.2d 979; People v. Torres, 160 A.D.2d 746).
FLORIO, J.P., FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.