—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered March 17, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against its weight. When assessed in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference, the proof was sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant’s challenges to the credibility of the People’s witnesses were presented to the jury for consideration, and our review reveals no basis to disturb its determinations (People v Bleakley,
The trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in permitting testimony regarding observation of defendant, in
The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for dismissal of the indictment made on the ground that it was based on peijured testimony. Although the prosecutor advised defendant and the court of his belief that one witness had offered perjured testimony before the Grand Jury, the record indicates that there was additional, apparently competent evidence before the Grand Jury to support the indictment (see, People v Swamp,
Finally, defendant cites parts of the prosecutor’s summation as improperly inviting the jury to convict defendant of murder on the theory that he was acting as an accomplice to the person who fired the fatal shot, and that this departure from the indictment (which charged defendant as a principal) deprived defendant of a fair trial. The record reveals that defendant’s objections to this tactic were, in the main, sustained by the trial court.
We also note that New York criminal law draws no distinction between principal and accessorial liability (Penal Law § 20.00). A defendant may be lawfully convicted as an accomplice to a crime where the indictment charges him as a principal (People v Rivera,
We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they do not warrant reversal. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
