Opinion
February 4, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to establish the crime of robbery in the first degree. In view of the jury verdict we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the People ( People v Piazza, 48 N.Y.2d 151, 158-159; People v Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196, 201). Minor discrepancies between the testimony of witnesses is not sufficient to show that a witness's testimony was incredible as a matter of law ( People v Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116; People v Rosenfeld, 93 A.D.2d 872). Credibility is a matter reserved exclusively for the jury ( People v Concepcion, 38 N.Y.2d 211; People v Rosenfeld, supra) and we are traditionally resistant to second-guessing its determination on this issue ( People v Rodriguez, 72 A.D.2d 571). There was sufficient evidence in the record, if credited by the jury, to sustain its conclusion that defendant was the perpetrator.
Likewise, there was sufficient evidence to establish the threatened use of a dangerous instrument to meet the requirements of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15). A threat to immediately use a dangerous object need not be accompanied by a verbalization ( People v Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, cert denied 449 U.S. 1087). Here defendant's conduct in surrounding the complainant with his accomplices, ordering the complainant to surrender his minibike and, when complainant refused, "grab[bing]" for a knife constitutes the threatened immediate use of a dangerous instrument. Although the complainant never saw the blade of the knife, his description of it which indicated it was a sheathed hunting type knife was sufficient to establish that defendant threatened to use a "dangerous instrument" ( People v Pena, supra; cf. People v Barnes, 99 A.D.2d 877, 878). Lazer, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.