People v. Marshall

*703The defendants’ claims as to the adequacy of the corroboration of the accomplice’s testimony and the alleged failure of the court to give a charge regarding the operability of the weapons in question (see, Penal Law § 160.15 [4]) are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Cona, 49 NY2d 26; People v Lewis, 203 AD2d 389).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendants’…