He claims various errors upon the trial, one of which is that the weapon possession count should have been dismissed upon his conviction for attempted first degree robbery, for the proof showed that the attempted robbery was committed while armed with and using and threatening the immediate use of a knife (Penal Law, ยง 160.15, subd 3). We find that the weapon count is an "inclusory concurrent count" with respect to count one, the first degree attempted robbery (CPL 300.30, subd 4), there being no evidence showing possession of the knife apart from the robbery attempt (see People v Carter, 49 A.D.2d 546, 547; People v McCrory, 47 A.D.2d 887; People v Hogan, 47 A.D.2d 731). The District Attorney with admirable candor states that the "evidence adduced at trial does not point to any possession of the knife with intent to use unlawfully, independent of the robbery attempt". The other contentions made by defendant are without merit.