Judgment affirmed.
Defendant did not request a charge that witness Donald Ingram was an accomplice as a matter of law whose testimony needed to be corroborated, and did not take exception to the failure to so charge. He similarly declined to request that the court submit to the jury for their factual determination the question of whether Ingram was an accomplice or to except to the absence of such a charge. Thus, these issues are unpreserved for appellate review ( People v. Aleschus, 55 N.Y.2d 775; People v. Cona, 49 N.Y.2d 26). We have considered such other of defendant's contentions as have been preserved for our review and find them to be lacking in merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.