The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility and identification.
Defendant was not deprived of his right to testify before the Grand Jury. The People provided defendant, who was at liberty, with adequate notice of two dates scheduled for the Grand Jury presentation (see, People v. Pugh, 207 A.D.2d 503; People v. Smith, 191 A.D.2d 598, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1020), and are not responsible for defendant's failure to remain in touch with counsel.
Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the Grand Jury evidence is foreclosed by statute (CPL 210.30[6]).
Defendant's challenge to the court's charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.