ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain statements he made to law enforcement officials is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial. [1] The defendant’s contention that his conviction was not based upon legally sufficient evidence is largely unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05[2]; Peoplev. Dawson, 178 A.D.3d 719, 720, 115 N.Y.S.3d 360; Peoplev. Williams, 171 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 98 N.Y.S.3d 631). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was, legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (seePeoplev. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932).

The defendant's contention that his conviction was not based upon legally sufficient evidence is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Dawson, 178 A.D.3d 719, 720; People v Williams, 171 A.D.3d 1223, 1224). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620).

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree and petit larceny in connection with an incident that occurred at a party supply store in April 2017. The defendant's contention that the People did not present legally sufficient evidence with respect to her identity as the perpetrator of these crimes is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to move for a trial order of dismissal on the basis of that specific claim (see People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492; People v Williams, 171 A.D.3d 1223, 1224). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's contention that the People did not present legally sufficient evidence with respect to her identity as the perpetrator of these crimes is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to move for a trial order of dismissal on the basis of that specific claim (seePeople v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Williams, 171 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 98 N.Y.S.3d 631 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (seePeople v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's contention that the People did not present legally sufficient evidence with respect to her identity as the perpetrator of these crimes is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to move for a trial order of dismissal on the basis of that specific claim (see People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492; People v Williams, 171 A.D.3d 1223, 1224). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's contention that the People did not present legally sufficient evidence with respect to her identity as the perpetrator of these crimes is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to move for a trial order of dismissal on the basis of that specific claim (see People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492; People v Williams, 171 A.D.3d 1223, 1224). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's contention that the People did not present legally sufficient evidence with respect to her identity as the perpetrator of these crimes is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to move for a trial order of dismissal on the basis of that specific claim (see People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492; People v Williams, 171 A.D.3d 1223, 1224). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.