The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues concerning the credibility of the accomplice witnesses, as well as the nonaccomplice witnesses who provided ample corroboration ( see, People v. Breland, 83 N.Y.2d 286), were properly considered by the trial court, and we see no reason to disturb its findings. There was ample evidence that "the explosion [and] fire [were] caused with the expectation or receipt of financial advantage or pecuniary profit by the actor" (Penal Law § 150.20 [a] [ii]), defendant being the "actor" for purposes of the statute ( see, Penal Law § 20.00).
Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment for unauthorized resubmission to a second Grand Jury was properly denied. Because the presentation to the first Grand Jury had been minimal, the withdrawal was not the equivalent of a dismissal ( People v. Dym, 163 A.D.2d 150, 154, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 892).
Defendant's jury trial waiver was valid. There is no indication that anyone ever promised defendant that such waiver would result in a favorable verdict ( compare, People v. Fossett, 216 A.D.2d 233, 234, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 794).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.