People v. Laviscount

Dec 30, 2008
Versions:57 A.D.3d 1007
869 N.Y.2d 792

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of robbery in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Andolina, 23 AD3d 573 [2005]; People v Ross, 180 AD2d 698 [1992]). In any event, 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 beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant forcibly stole property from the complainant (see Penal Law § 160.05; People v Cusimano, 48 AD3d 475 [2008]; People v Andolina, 23 AD3d 573 [2005]; People v Cannon, 1 AD3d 606 [2003]). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, is without merit (see CPL 310.30; People v Adames, 42 AD3d 328, 329 [2007]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, McCarthy and Dickerson, JJ., concur.