Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered February 27, 1974, convicting defеndant, after a jury trial, of the crimes of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree, petit larceny and possession of a weaрon as a misdemeanor and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment ranging from 8 Vs to 25 years for robbery in the first degree to one year on the petit larceny and weapon charge, unanimously modified, on the lаw and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, tо the extent of reversing defendant’s conviction of all сrimes except possession of a weapon аs a misdemeanor and dismissing said counts of the indictment. Defendаnt’s conviction of possession of a weapon аs a misdemeanor is unanimously affirmed. Defendant was chargеd with robbing complainant at about 2:15 a.m. while acting in conсert with one Horne, after the complainant rejeсted Horne’s offer of a "trick” with a nearby prostitute. According to the complainant, who admitted consuming about fivе alcoholic drinks prior to the incident, the three men сonversed for several moments thereafter and then Hоrne suddenly pulled out a gun, grabbed $53 from complainant’s shirt pocket (which was clearly visible because of the transparency of the garment) and ran away. As to appеllant, the complainant testified that he "just stood there” and "I think he was more stunned than I was.” When the complainant reached for appellant, the latter produced а knife, inflicted a superficial wound on complainant and ran away. Shortly thereafter defendant and Horne were separately arrested after they were identified by the complainant as the perpetrators. Defendаnt was searched and found in possession of an "007” knife. Prior to arraignment, both appellant and Horne denied any knоwledge of the crime and stated that they had never seen each other or the complainant before the evening in issue. Horne testified in his own behalf at the trial, denied any involvement in the robbery, gave a plausible explanation for his presence in the area at the hour in question, and was exonerated by the jury. Appellant chose not to testify in his own behalf; and was convicted. On review of the rеcord we find the jury’s verdict acquitting the principal and cоnvicting the accomplice reversibly inconsistent and irrаtional. Moreover, in light of the complainant’s own testimоny, we find appellant’s role in the incident insufficiently established to support a criminal conviction for robbery or larceny. (Cf. People v Cleague,
52 A.D.2d 779
N.Y. App. Div.1976AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.