Majority
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered December 12, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly instructed the jury on accomplice liability. The court’s charge, which included the precise language of Penal Law § 20.00, clearly conveyed to the jury that the defendant had to possess the intent to commit the crime of robbery in the first degree (see People v Kaplan, 76 NY2d 140 [1990]; People v Accely, 272 AD2d 337 [2000]; People v Jordan, 187 AD2d 731 [1992]; People v Wise, 135 AD2d 593 [1987]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those regarding the prosecutor’s summation, are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brown, 249 AD2d 320 [1998]), and, in any event, without merit (see People v Jones, 294 AD2d 517 [2002]; People v Green, 182 AD2d 704 [1992]; People v Blackstock, 184 AD2d 775 [1992]; People v Johnson, 154 AD2d 618 [1989]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 p. 667
- People v. Garafolo 44 AD2d 86 at 88 p. 668
- People v. Kaplan 76 NY2d 140 p. 668
- People v. Jones 294 AD2d 517 p. 668
- People v. Green 182 AD2d 704 p. 668
- People v. Blackstock 184 AD2d 775 p. 668