People v. Cunningham
Opinion of the Court
Appeal by defendant
Judgment affirmed.
Contrary to defendant’s contention, there was sufficient independent evidence to corroborate the testimony of Raymond Duncan, defendant’s conceded accomplice, to satisfy the requirement under CPL 60.22 (subd 1) (see, e.g., People v Glasper, 52 NY2d 970).
As to defendant’s challenge to the sentence imposed, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion nor is there any basis for this court to modify the sentence in its discretion (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.