Opinion
February 1, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Sheridan, J.).
Defendant's claim that the verdict was repugnant is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to object to the verdict prior to the discharge of the jury ( People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. We reject the argument that it was "unrealistic" to expect defendant to request resubmission to the jury since in this case defendant had been convicted on all counts in the indictment, eliminating any danger that an acquittal could be changed to a conviction on one or more counts ( compare, People v. Sanchez, 128 A.D.2d 377).
In any event, defendant's convictions on four counts of robbery in the first degree were not repugnant with the codefendant's acquittals on the same counts, even though defendant and his codefendant were convicted of robbery in the second degree while aiding each other (Penal Law § 60.10), since the jury's disparate findings can be reconciled in light of the court's charge ( see, People v. Green, 71 N.Y.2d 1006). In any event, the jury was entitled to exercise leniency regarding the codefendant as it saw fit ( see, People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 7; People v Rodriguez, 179 A.D.2d 554).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.