Opinion
February 6, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence adduced at 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 support the conviction. The People proved that the defendant, along with two accomplices, entered a dwelling wherein they bound and gagged its lone occupant, whom they then threatened and forced to surrender her family's valuables. Unbeknownst to the perpetrators, however, a neighbor had witnessed the unlawful entry and had notified the police, who surrounded the house. The defendant and one of his accomplices were apprehended as they attempted to flee through a side door. They were found to be in possession of property removed from the house. Clearly this evidence was legally sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for robbery in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 160.10; see, People v Robinson, 127 A.D.2d 860, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 655; People v Dorsey, 112 A.D.2d 536, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 763; see also, Matter of Wade F., 49 N.Y.2d 730) and burglary in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 140.25; People v Austin, 128 A.D.2d 793). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (CPL 470.15), we find that the jury's verdict was not against the weight of the evidence which overwhelmingly established his guilt.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v Rawlings, 144 A.D.2d 500; People v Crawford, 130 A.D.2d 678; People v Gavins, 118 A.D.2d 582, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1052; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.