MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10) following a joint trial with two codefendants. We reject defendant's contentions that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Camacho, 288 A.D.2d 947, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 702). We reject defendant's further contention that Supreme Court erred in its supplemental charge on asportation. As we concluded in the prior appeal of a codefendant, the court "properly instructed the jury that the movement of the property by the owner from his physical possession as a result of threats by defendants may constitute the degree of movement required by law" ( id. at 948; see also People v. James, 981 P.2d 637, 641 [Colo], cert denied 1999 Colo LEXIS 707 [Sup Ct, July 26, 1999]; Wright v. State, 487 So.2d 1176, 1178 [Fla]; Johnson v. State, 432 So.2d 758, 759 [Fla]; People v. Price, 25 Cal.App.3d 576, 579; People v. Martinez, 274 Cal.App.2d 170, 174). Finally, the court did not err in admitting evidence of uncharged crimes because the evidence was necessary "to complete the narrative of events to assist the jury in its comprehension of the crime" ( People v. Hamid, 209 A.D.2d 716, 717, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 973; see People v. Zanghi, 256 A.D.2d 1120, 1121, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 881). In any event, the court's limiting instructions to the jury eliminated any prejudice to defendant ( see People v. Glass, 259 A.D.2d 989, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 924).