Opinion
February 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On this appeal, the defendant contends that there was legally insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove that a weapon was displayed during the robbery, as required by Penal Law § 160.15, and that the defendant was one of the participants in the crime. We find that these claims were not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see, 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 (see, People v Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 381).
The defendant's challenge to the trial court's alibi charge is similarly unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Patterson, 39 N.Y.2d 288, 294-295). In any event, the charge as a whole conveyed the necessary information regarding the People's burden of proof (see, People v Warren, 76 N.Y.2d 773, 774-775).
Finally, the sentence imposed was proper (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2-b]). Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.