DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his [*2]guilt of robbery in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Elmore, 269 A.D.2d 404; People v. Jackson, 211 A.D.2d 686; see also People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745; People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. West, 233 A.D.2d 277; People v. Rodriguez, 179 A.D.2d 554; see also People v. Montgomery, 116 A.D.2d 669). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15; People v. Rayam, 94 N.Y.2d 557; People v. West, supra; see also People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695, 697). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the acquittal on one count did not undermine the weight and sufficiency of the evidence on the count of which the defendant was convicted ( see People v. Rayam, supra; People v. West, supra).
S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.