Opinion
May 21, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People did not prove that he had the requisite specific intent to commit the crime of attempted robbery in the third degree. We find, however, that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence establishes both that the defendant intended to forcibly steal property from the victim and that he engaged in conduct which tended to effect commission of the robbery (see, Penal Law § 110.00; People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We also conclude that the defendant's untimely motion for severance of the crimes charged in the indictment was properly denied since the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for delay in making the application (see, CPL 255.20, [3]; 255.10 [1] [g]; People v. Kehn, 109 A.D.2d 912; see also, People v. Coates, 157 A.D.2d 843). The defendant's application for waiver of a jury trial for so much of the indictment as charged him with criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument was also properly denied (see, CPL 320.10, [2]; People v. Wallace, 153 A.D.2d 59). Inasmuch as the judgment of conviction rests upon legally sufficient trial evidence, we conclude that the defendant's challenge to the nature of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury is unavailing under the facts of this case (see, People v. O'Connor, 126 A.D.2d 676; People v. Plastini, 125 A.D.2d 505). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.