Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of robbery in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Andolina, 23 AD3d 573; People v Ross, 180 AD2d 698). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant forcibly stole property from the complainant ( see Penal Law § 160.05; People v Cusimano, 48 AD3d 475; People v Andolina, 23 AD3d 573; People v Cannon, 1 AD3d 606). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05) and, in any event, is without merit ( see CPL 310.30; People v Adames, 42 AD3d 328, 329).