The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. On the contrary, we find the evidence to be overwhelming. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility.
Defendant's contentions concerning the exhibition of the injured victim to the jury and the imposition of consecutive sentences for robbery and attempted murder are indistinguishable from arguments this Court rejected on the codefendant's appeal (People v. Franco, 270 A.D.2d 160 [March 23, 2000], 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3083), and there is no reason to reach a different result here.
Defendant's claim that he was incriminated by a nontestifying codefendant's insufficiently redacted statements is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find any error to be harmless (see,People v. Maher, 89 N.Y.2d 456, 462).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in ordering the sentences imposed herein to run consecutively to a sentence previously imposed in an unrelated matter.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.