Opinion
March 19, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in a light most favorable to the People (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. The People proved that the defendant forcibly stole property, i.e., a wallet, from the victim. On the instant appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the court, in its charge, referred to the stolen property in the conjunctive, i.e., a "wallet, keys and a beeper", (2) the People were therefore obligated to adduce legally sufficient proof that the keys and the beeper were also stolen, (3) the People failed to adduce such proof and (4) the conviction must therefore be reversed. This argument must be rejected.
The particular nature of the property stolen during the commission of a robbery is not, by statute, a material element of that crime (People v Spann, 56 N.Y.2d 469; People v Goodman, 156 A.D.2d 713; see also, People v Rooney, 57 N.Y.2d 822). In any event, legally sufficient evidence was adduced with respect to the forcible taking of the keys and beeper (see, Harrison v People, 50 N.Y. 518; People v Alamo, 34 N.Y.2d 453).
Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.