ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant did not preserve for appellate review her claim that the Supreme Court erred in failing to charge the jury that the codefendant, who testified at the trial pursuant to a cooperation agreement with the People, was an accomplice as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Nichilo, 274 A.D.2d 592). Moreover, the Supreme Court's failure to charge the jury that the codefendant was an interested witness as a matter of law does not warrant reversal (see, People v. Inniss, 83 N.Y.2d 653; People v. Cruz, 262 A.D.2d 579). We note that the testimony of the complainants and an eyewitness to the crime independently and overwhelmingly established the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Odiot, 242 A.D.2d 308; People v. Martin, 169 A.D.2d 784).
ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.