Opinion
March 10, 1986
Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.).
Order of disposition reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, fact-finding order vacated, and petition dismissed.
To sustain a conviction for robbery in the second degree based upon accessorial liability, the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted with the mental culpability necessary to commit the crime charged and that, in furtherance thereof, he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided the principal to commit such crime (see, Penal Law § 20.00; People v. Karchefski, 102 A.D.2d 856; People v Reyes, 82 A.D.2d 925). Mere presence at the scene of the crime is insufficient to establish the guilt of the observer as an accessory to the crime (People v. La Belle, 18 N.Y.2d 405, 412; People v. McLean, 107 A.D.2d 167, 169, affd 65 N.Y.2d 758; People v. Karchefski, supra). We find insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the appellant's intent to commit the crime of robbery in the second degree was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. At most, the appellant's presence at the commission of the robbery was established. There is no basis, however, to find that the appellant aided or participated in the robbery of which he was convicted (see, People v. Reyes, 110 A.D.2d 663). Accordingly, the order of disposition must be reversed, the fact-finding determination vacated, and the petition dismissed. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.