The court's findings were based on legally sufficient evidence to establish the charge of robbery in the first degree. The presentment agency was not required to prove that appellant intended or knew that the accomplice would threaten the immediate use of a dangerous instrument ( People v. Mitchell, 235 A.D.2d 321, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 861; People v. Pagan, 227 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 991). Respondent agency did establish the required specific intent, to wit, intent to use force to take the property of another, and there was sufficient evidence that appellant participated m the joint robbery of both victims.
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.