Opinion
March 7, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosenblatt, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the jury's verdict is repugnant because it acquitted him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees. Because the defendant did not raise this issue prior to the discharge of the jury the matter is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745, rearg denied 57 N.Y.2d 674; People v. Ahmedoff, 131 A.D.2d 683, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 708). In any event, after reviewing the court's instructions to the jury as to both the robbery counts and the weapons possession counts, 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, rearg denied 55 N.Y.2d 1039; People v. Ahmedoff, supra). Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.