Opinion
July 6, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, 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), we find that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support defendant's conviction for robbery in the first degree. Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). The arguments raised by defendant concerning the credibility of the complaining witness were properly placed before the jury and, after considering the relative force of the conflicting testimony and the competing inferences that may be drawn therefrom, we find no reason on the record before us to disturb its determination. These findings are not affected by reversal of the codefendant's conviction (People v. Rivera, 184 A.D.2d 288, appeal dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 758).
Inasmuch as the stop of defendant's vehicle and his subsequent arrest were concededly proper, and the officers had reason to believe that the vehicle contained evidence related to the crime for which the occupants were arrested, the "automobile exception" to the requirement for a search warrant gave the officers probable cause to search the entire vehicle, including the locked trunk compartment, at the scene of the arrest (People v. Fulton, 189 A.D.2d 778, 780, citing People v. Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393, 398; People v. Langen, 60 N.Y.2d 170, cert denied 465 U.S. 1028). Defendant's other contention that he was deprived of a fair trial due to the purportedly erroneous admission into evidence of a hearsay statement was not preserved for review as a matter of law (see, People v. Buckley, 75 N.Y.2d 843, 846), and we decline to review in the interest of justice.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.