Opinion
April 16, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the photo array from which he and his codefendant Frank Russo were identified was unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification has been considered and rejected by this court on the codefendant's appeal (see, People v. Russo, 109 A.D.2d 855). The defendant has not advanced any argument requiring a different result herein.
The defendant further contends that the prosecution failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence to establish his guilt of robbery in the first degree premised upon his accomplice's display of what appeared to be a handgun. However, as the defendant did not raise a specific objection on this ground in his motion for a trial order of dismissal, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Lyons, 154 A.D.2d 715; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, the uncontroverted testimony which indicated that the accomplice held his hand in his jacket in such a manner that it appeared to the victim that he had a gun, while threatening to "blow" the victim away, fully supported a finding by the jury that there was a conscious display by the accomplice of what appeared to be a handgun (see, Penal Law § 160.15; People v. Lopez, 73 N.Y.2d 214, 222; People v. Smith, 142 A.D.2d 619; People v. Armour, 140 A.D.2d 354).
Additionally, viewing the identification evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). 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).
Finally, in view of his past history of criminal behavior, the sentence imposed upon the defendant was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find that they are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.