Opinion
December 7, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court's charge regarding the inferences which the jury could draw from the defendant's recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of the robbery was improper because the court failed to mention that the defendant was in possession of only part of the stolen property. We disagree.
The charge as a whole informed the jury of the correct legal principles (see, People v Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 383; People v Galbo, 218 N.Y. 283, 290; People v Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830; CPL 300.10). Furthermore, the jury was well informed of the fact that the defendant only possessed part of the stolen property, as the defendant's summation concentrated almost exclusively on this fact. Thus, reversible error did not take place. Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.