Opinion
May 10, 1994
Appeal from the Family Court, Bronx County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the presentment agency and giving it the benefit of every favorable inference (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932) the complainant's testimony that he observed appellant, whom he knew, and three others punch him and that he saw appellant and another take his money was sufficient as a matter of law to prove that appellant, aided by another, forcibly stole property and knowingly possessed that property. Any discrepancies regarding where or how the robbery occurred were questions of fact for the court to resolve (see, Matter of Mikal M., 191 A.D.2d 381). Moreover, the other alleged inconsistencies merely presented an issue of fact for the court to assess in determining the complainant's credibility (supra). Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying appellant's application for a continuance in order to produce another witness. Appellant did not indicate when the witness would be available (People v Allen, 200 A.D.2d 387). In addition, counsel's explanation for the prior failure of the witness to appear was unsubstantiated (Matter of Peter R., 191 A.D.2d 214).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.