Opinion
April 20, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bonnie Wittner, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), the jury's determination of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, on an acting in concert theory, is amply supported. (See, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490.) Further, upon an independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. (People v Bleakley, supra.) The victim testified that defendant threatened him with an ice pick, which was recovered from defendant only minutes after the robbery occurred. While defendant testified that his involvement in the incident resulted from his attempt to separate his codefendant and the victim from fighting, and that he did not threaten the victim with an ice pick, the jury was entitled to determine which account of the incident it found credible. (People v Atkins, 182 A.D.2d 531.)
Defendant's accessorial liability was established by the victim's testimony that defendant threatened him with an ice pick in a punching motion as his jacket was searched by the codefendant. (Matter of Roddell A., 165 A.D.2d 790.) Moreover, defendant's codefendant kept the victim's jacket after the victim slid from it and ran. Thus, there was a "`taking or severance of the goods from the possession'" of the victim which was sufficient to establish defendant's larcenous intent. (People v Smith, 140 A.D.2d 259, 260.)
Concur — Carro, J.P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.