Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant's argument that the court erred in failing to charge accessorial liability (Penal Law § 20.00). The indictment, the evidence and the court's instruction to the jury made abundantly clear that defendant was charged as a principal. In any event, if the evidence and jury instructions are to the effect that defendant is principal, that fact does not constitute a variance from an indictment charging him as an accomplice, or vice versa (see, People v Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 79-80, cert. denied 442 U.S. 910; People v Katz, 209 N.Y. 311, 325-326; People v Ralston, 112 A.D.2d 758; People v Lewis, 105 A.D.2d 758). All that is required of an indictment is that it provide a defendant with fair notice of the charges against him. Such notice is given by an indictment which simply charges the defendant with a specified Penal Law violation whether the prosecution's theory is that defendant is a principal or an abettor (see, People v Liccione, 63 A.D.2d 305, 312-313, affd 50 N.Y.2d 850). Defendant's other issues are similarly lacking in merit.