Opinion
May 5, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the jury's verdict is repugnant because it acquitted him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant did not raise this issue prior to the discharge of the jury (see, People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745; People v. Taylor, 138 A.D.2d 427; People v. Ahmedoff, 131 A.D.2d 683). In any event, after reviewing the court's instructions to the jury as to both the robbery counts and the weapon possession count, we find that the verdict is not inherently repugnant (see, People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695; People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1; People v Taylor, supra; People v. Cobb, 137 A.D.2d 700; People v. Ellis, 120 A.D.2d 743; People v. Alexander, 91 A.D.2d 666).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.