The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. Contrary to defendant's argument, the People were not required to prove that he was still present at, or participating in, the riot at the moment of the victims' injuries ( see Penal Law § 240.06; 120.05[6]). The riot statute permits a riot participant to be held criminally liable for the acts of other participants, in the course of the same continuing riot, even after his or her own participation may have terminated ( see People v. Spivey, 81 N.Y.2d 356, 361; compare People v. Hedgeman, 70 N.Y.2d 533). Similarly, the court's instruction in this regard was correct.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.