Opinion
January 7, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.).
The People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant forcibly stole property with the aid of another person actually present. The record reveals that defendant committed the robbery in the full view of his companion, who acted as a lookout and was in a position to render immediate assistance to defendant (see, People v. Dennis, 146 A.D.2d 708, affd 75 N.Y.2d 821). Thus, the companion's presence near the complainant security guard "posed a sufficient threat of additional violence so as to satisfy the aggravating element necessary to raise the offense to second degree robbery" (supra). Defendant's claim that the prosecutor's summation remarks were improper is largely unpreserved. In any event, the ADA's summation remarks were a direct response to defense counsel's attacks on the complainant's credibility and fair comment on the improbability of defendant's version of events (see, People v. Morris, 159 A.D.2d 388, 389, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 793). Also unpreserved is defendant's contention that the trial court, as a matter of law, should have charged the jury that the complainant was an interested witness and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review we would note that the trial court was not required to give such a charge (People v. Wilson, 154 A.D.2d 566, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 912).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.