Opinion
April 29, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pesce, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to establish that he possessed the intent necessary to support a conviction of assault in the second degree because it was his accomplice who shot the victim during the course of the robbery. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. The evidence that the defendant was inside the video arcade when the robbery and shooting occurred and that he threatened the victim was uncontroverted. There was also testimony that he gave some orders to his accomplice while in the video arcade and that he left the arcade with his accomplice after the shooting. This evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant had the intent to injure the victim (see, People v. Oquendo, 147 A.D.2d 506; People v. Marcus, 133 A.D.2d 708; cf., People v. Bray, 99 A.D.2d 470; People v. Padgett, 145 A.D.2d 443). The fact that the evidence might be subject to an interpretation different from that credited by the jury, does not mean that the People failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Raphael, 134 A.D.2d 535).
Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.