Opinion
April 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621). In order to hold an accessory liable for acts committed by his principal, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accessory possessed the requisite mental culpability for the crime charged (see, Penal Law § 20.00; People v Allah, 71 N.Y.2d 830; People v Armistead, 178 A.D.2d 607). Here, the evidence established that the defendant was aware that his accomplice was armed (see, People v Whatley, 69 N.Y.2d 784; People v Livingston, 171 A.D.2d 759, 760), and that the defendant actively participated in the robbery. The complainant testified that as a group of five males were walking towards him, two of them, the defendant and his accomplice, approached the complainant. The defendant's accomplice held a gun to the complainant's head and took money and jewelry from him. When his accomplice stepped aside, the defendant approached the complainant and stated "A pussy like you supposed to get robbed." He then snatched two chains from the complainant's neck. After the accomplice fired several shots in the air, both the defendant and his accomplice fled (see, People v Armistead, 178 A.D.2d 607, supra). Moreover, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt, was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490).
We also find that the hearing court properly concluded that the complainant had an independent basis to identify the defendant at the trial, notwithstanding the improper showup by the police after the defendant's arrest (see, People v Hyatt, 162 A.D.2d 713).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.