Opinion
October 26, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D'Amaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It was established during the plea allocution that the defendant forcibly stole a quantity of United States currency from a bank after passing the teller a note in which he demanded money and declared that he had a gun. In addition to the threatening note, the defendant carried a portfolio in which he kept his hand throughout the course of the robbery in such a manner as to convey to the teller the impression that there was a handgun in the portfolio. Contrary to the defendant's assertions, the evidence was sufficient to establish that he had displayed what appeared to be a firearm within the meaning of Penal Law § 160.15 (4) (see, People v. Saez, 69 N.Y.2d 802, 804; People v Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 381; cf., People v. Copeland, 124 A.D.2d 669, 670, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 710). Accordingly, the court did not err in accepting the defendant's plea of guilty to the crime of robbery in the first degree and his accompanying waiver of any available affirmative defenses.
There is no sound reason to disturb the sentence imposed (see, People v. Neal, 118 A.D.2d 815, 816, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1055). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.