Opinion
May 23, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Antonio Brandveen, J.).
Defendant was convicted of robbery committed on a subway platform. Immediately apprehended by bystanders, defendant admitted planning and committing the robbery with two accomplices. At a pretrial hearing to contest admissibility of his statement, defense counsel contended that he was not provided with adequate notice beyond a skeletal synopsis of his statement contained in the voluntary disclosure form. The prosecutor countered, relying on notes in his trial folder that full notice of the entire statement was provided at arraignment. Counsel never rebutted this representation with arraignment minutes at the hearing, and defendant has failed to provide such minutes on appeal. Since it was defendant's obligation to provide this Court with a full record upon which it could evaluate his claim (People v Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309, 320), no reviewable issue has been presented for our consideration.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and indulging all reasonable inferences in the People's favor (People v Alexander, 75 N.Y.2d 979, 980), defendant's guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. The evidence was legally sufficient to establish that defendant forcibly stole property, aided by another person actually present (Penal Law § 160.10) who was ready, willing and able to participate in the robbery (People v Hedgeman, 70 N.Y.2d 533, 541), by aiding in the retention of the property (People v Velez, 155 A.D.2d 365, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 819).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.