Opinion
December 17, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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 (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), 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. La Belle, 18 N.Y.2d 405; People v. Taylor, 141 A.D.2d 581; Matter of John G., 118 A.D.2d 646; People v. Hayes, 117 A.D.2d 621).
The evidence adduced at trial through the victim's testimony was that the defendant grabbed the victim and dragged him around the corner and beat him about the face resulting in a broken jaw. While hitting the victim, the defendant unzipped the victim's jacket, while a second unapprehended man held a gun to the victim's back and stripped him of his belongings. Because a rational trier of fact would have been warranted in crediting the testimony of the victim and because the testimony adduced at trial was more than sufficient to establish the elements of robbery in the second degree, there is no basis for disturbing the verdict (see, People v. Mustafa, 132 A.D.2d 628, 629; People v. Molina, 127 A.D.2d 796, 797).
Furthermore, defendant's contention that he did not share in the other man's intent to commit a robbery, but intended only to assault the victim was discredited by the jury (see, People v. Raphael, 134 A.D.2d 535). 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). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.