Opinion
January 28, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). The unequivocal and uncontradicted testimony of four witnesses at the trial that the defendant displayed what appeared to be a firearm during and immediately after the commission of the robbery clearly established beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt of robbery in the first degree as defined in Penal Law § 160.15 (4).
In a supplemental brief filed by the defendant's substituted retained counsel, the defendant contends that the 38-month delay in the perfection of his appeal by his original appellate counsel resulted in a violation of his due process right to a speedy appeal (see, Barker v Wingo, 407 U.S. 514; see also, People v Cousart, 58 N.Y.2d 62, 68-69). Given the paucity of the record with respect to this claim, however, we conclude that the defendant's remedy lies in the bringing of a coram nobis proceeding (see, People v Bachert, 69 N.Y.2d 593).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05) or without merit. Brown, J.P., Kooper, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.