Opinion
January 21, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.).
The record does not support the defendant's contention that the complainant's testimony was incredible, deliberately evasive and contradicted by the responding police officer's testimony and paperwork. The complainant was unequivocal in both the specifics of the robbery itself and in his in-court identification of the defendant as one of the perpetrators, the jurors thus having a sufficient basis to disregard whatever discrepancies that may have existed (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495; see, People v. Cruz, 173 A.D.2d 320, 320-321). Nor does the evidence support the defense claim, argued for the first time on appeal, that the complainant merely surrendered his jewelry, on a subway platform on his way to work, as repayment of a debt.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Kassal, JJ.