In any event, that contention is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that it is legally sufficient to establish that defendant committed the crime of robbery in the first degree inasmuch as the People presented evidence that he displayed a weapon and demanded money ( see People v Edwards, 46 AD3d 698, lv denied 10 NY3d 764; People v Elliot, 298 AD2d 290, lv denied 99 NY2d 558; see also People v Fields, 179 AD2d 458, 459). We further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Harding, 243 AD2d 401, lv denied 91 NY2d 874; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).

Evidence legally sufficient to support an indictment is defined by CPL 70.10 (1) as "competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof" (People v. Deegan, 69 N.Y.2d 976, 978-979). To meet that test, the evidence, when unexplained, uncontradicted, and viewed in the light most favorable to the People, need only reasonably support an inference that the defendant committed the crime charged (People v. Swamp, 84 N.Y.2d 725; People v. Redmond, 183 A.D.2d 490, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 933; People v. Fields, 179 A.D.2d 458). Penal Law § 260.10 (2) provides, in pertinent part:

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.). The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). Defendant's use or threatened immediate use of a dangerous instrument (Penal Law § 160.15) was established by evidence that he "swished" a knife during a struggle with the complainant and his brother, after defendant picked the complainant's pocket and as the complainant recovered the stolen money from defendant's grasp ( see, People v. Fields, 179 A.D.2d 458, lv withdrawn 79 N.Y.2d 947). Credibility issues were properly presented to the jury and we see no reason to disturb its verdict. The sentence imposed was not excessive in light of defendant's criminal history, which was correctly characterized by the sentencing court as an "increasing pattern of violence" in defendant's theft-related crimes.

In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the People satisfied their burden of providing prima facie evidence to support the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. As the trial court acknowledged, the Grand Jury had before it both the police officer's observation of defendant pointing a gun down a street crowded with people and cars, and defendant's subsequent admission to the officers that he pulled the gun because he felt that "two guys that were messing with his brother's girlfriend" were going to pull a gun on him. Taken together, and viewed in a light most favorable to the People, the evidence clearly supports an inference that defendant was in possession of a weapon with the intent to use it unlawfully against another ( see, People v Okafore, 72 N.Y.2d 81; People v Fields, 179 A.D.2d 458, lv withdrawn 79 N.Y.2d 947; People v Rivera, 171 A.D.2d 583, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 973; People v Williams, ___ A.D.2d ___, 1995 N.Y. Slip Op 10592 [1st Dept, Nov. 28, 1995]). Further, the trial court's conclusion that there was no evidence that the gun was directed at anyone in particular is belied by both Officer Fitzgibbon's testimony that defendant was pointing the gun down Westchester Avenue which was crowded at the time with people and by defendant's statement that he was reacting to a perceived threat from two, albeit unknown, individuals.

Such intent could readily be inferred from the evidence. Defendant did not merely possess the gun but removed his glove, pulled the gun from his jacket, aimed it at the victim's face and said, "I'll bust you right now" clearly evidencing an intent to use the gun unlawfully ( People v Rivera, 171 A.D.2d 583, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 973; People v Fields, 179 A.D.2d 458, lv withdrawn 79 N.Y.2d 947). The credibility issues defendant now raises were properly placed before the jury, and we find no reason to disturb its determination. Defendant argues that the People improperly elicited testimony of his pretrial statement on their direct case and during the defense case after having withdrawn notice of their intent to introduce that statement.

After further demand and physical assault by the accomplice, the complainant turned over his cash. Contrary to defendant's claim on appeal, his guilt of robbery in the first degree was established by evidence showing that he "[u]se[d] or threaten[ed] the immediate use of a dangerous instrument" (Penal Law § 160.15). His actions, coupled with continuing demands and the physical violence constituted "a deliberate, if implicit, threat to use force" (People v. Fields, 179 A.D.2d 458, 459, lv withdrawn 79 N.Y.2d 947). Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.