Opinion
May 11, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends, inter alia, that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove the crime of kidnapping in the second degree. We disagree.
The defendant abducted the complainant at gun point. During the incident he showed her his parole papers which contained prior convictions for murder and robbery, to let her know he "mean[t] business". He demanded that she drive him to Staten Island, and refused to tell her what he would do with her once she drove him there. However, while getting gas, the complainant managed to escape. There was no attempt by the defendant to commit any other crime which would have made the abduction incidental to it. Thus, the doctrine of merger is inapplicable, as the defendant concedes (see, e.g., People v. Cain, 76 N.Y.2d 119, 124-125; People v Levy, 15 N.Y.2d 159, cert denied 381 U.S. 938). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of kidnapping in the second degree (see, People v. Balcom, 171 A.D.2d 1028; People v. Dodt, 92 A.D.2d 1063, revd on other grounds 61 N.Y.2d 408).
We also find that the trial court properly denied the defendant's request to charge the lesser included offense of unlawful imprisonment. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the defendant (see, People v. Martin, 59 N.Y.2d 704, 705), we find no reasonable view of the evidence which would support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see, People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61; People v. Green, 56 N.Y.2d 427). Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.