Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). 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. 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 Crim. Proc. [5]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not err in refusing to submit the charge of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree as a lesser-included offense of attempted robbery in the second degree. Grand larceny in the fourth degree based upon the theory that property was taken from the person of the complainant ( see, Penal Law § 155.30) is not a lesser-included offense of robbery in the second degree ( see, People v. Tucker, 221 A.D.2d 670; Matter of Albert R., 215 A.D.2d 563; People v. Cintron, 199 A.D.2d 526; People v. Sidney, 178 A.D.2d 445).
Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.