Opinion
November 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People established that he had abandoned his knapsack, which contained a gun (see, People v Howard, 50 N.Y.2d 583, cert denied 449 U.S. 1023; People v Hogya, 80 A.D.2d 621).
In addition, the defendant contends that because the crimes for which he was convicted were part of one transaction and arose from a single act, the court erred in ordering the sentence for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree to be served consecutively to the sentence for robbery in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 70.25). However, according to the testimony elicited at trial, the defendant used an unloaded, inoperable gun to rob the victim and the defendant also possessed a loaded, operable gun in a knapsack on his back during and after the robbery. The defendant dropped the knapsack while being pursued by the police and a later search revealed the loaded gun. From these facts, the jury could have reasonably inferred that the defendant possessed the loaded gun with the intent to use it unlawfully against another, separate from the ultimate act which resulted in the robbery charge. Accordingly, imposition of consecutive sentences was permissible (see, People v Day, 73 N.Y.2d 208; People v James, 211 A.D.2d 824; People v Seow, 194 A.D.2d 635).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.