The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility. Defendant's accessorial liability could be reasonably inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including defendant's approaching a gas station attendant at 1:45 A.M. after the attendant finished servicing a customer and engaging the attendant in a conversation, thereby keeping him outside his store; acknowledgment of the unapprehended gunman's presence when the gunman arrived, which was followed by the gunman nodding to the codefendant; abruptly ending his conversation with the attendant and slowly walking away to the station's perimeter and looking in both directions, while the codefendant walked in the another direction and did the same; remaining nearby until the robbery was completed at which time he swerved and walked toward the codefendant; running away from the scene and into the park in close proximity to the codefendant and the gunman; and his apprehension with the codefendant in a cab near the crime scene (see, People v. Cabey, 85 N.Y.2d 417; People v. Harris, 271 A.D.2d 258, 706 N.Y.S.2d 392).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.