—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05). We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in failing to instruct the jury that defendant must have a “conscious objective” to use force to prevent any resistance to the retention of the stolen property (see, People v Miller, 87 NY2d 211, 217). The court instructed the jury that the threat of physical force must be used for the purpose of “[p] re venting or overcoming resistance to * * * the retention” of the property (Penal Law § 160.00 [1]), thus adequately conveying to the jury the proper mens rea for the crime (see, People v Smith, 79 NY2d 309, 312; People v McKinney, 195 AD2d 1003,1004, lv denied 82 NY2d 757; People v Wilkins, 191 AD2d 215, lv denied 81 NY2d 978). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court’s supplemental instruction adequately addressed the jury’s question concerning the threat of force (see, People v Brown, 81 AD2d 674, 675). The court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case. A rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Smith, supra, at 314), established that defendant threatened the grocery store employees with the immediate use of physical force in an effort to prevent the employees from recovering the stolen property (see, People v Smith, 233 AD2d 124,124-125, lv denied 89 NY2d 1101). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Sheridan, J. — Robbery, 3rd Degree.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gregory Robinson, Appellant
261 A.D.2d 888690 N.Y.S.2d 357
Authorities cited
No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.