The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the determinations of the jury concerning credibility and reliability of the identification testimony. There was ample evidence establishing, a community of purpose between defendant and his codefendant, including the fact that defendant continued his assault even as his codefendant stabbed one victim with an ice pick furnished to him by defendant, and that defendant later took back and used the ice pick against the other victim (compare, People v. Jones, 191 A.D.2d 279, with People v. Rivera, 176 A.D.2d 510, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 863).
"The prosecutor could properly comment on summation as to the failure of defendant, who called witnesses in his defense, to call certain other significant witnesses" (People v. Garcia, 256 A.D.2d 77, citing People v. Tankleff, 84 N.Y.2d 992, 994). In addition, the People's summation did not impinge upon defendant's right not to testify.
Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. The circumstances under which the showup was conducted were not unduly suggestive (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 545). Defendant's remaining arguments for suppression of the identification are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.