DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Mere presence at the scene of a crime cannot render a person liable as an accessory for the underlying criminal conduct (see,People v. Cabey, 85 N.Y.2d 417, 421; cf., Matter of Carmelo N., 228 A.D.2d 682; Matter of John G., 118 A.D.2d 646). However, the evidence elicited at trial was sufficient to establish that the defendant was acting as a lookout for and accomplice of two other individuals who were seen entering the residence of the complaining witness (see, People v. Wooten, 214 A.D.2d 596; cf., Matter of Carmelo N., supra at 682). Thus, 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.
RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, THOMPSON, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.