Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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 of robbery in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. There was ample evidence that the defendant and his accomplice consciously displayed something that could have been, and was, perceived to be a gun (see, People v. Lopez, 73 N.Y.2d 214; People v Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374). 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; see, People v. Broadhead, 179 A.D.2d 766; People v. Haney, 162 A.D.2d 613).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, it was not error to admit into evidence the icepick recovered from him and the candle recovered from his accomplice (see, People v. Scarola, 71 N.Y.2d 769; People v. Roldos, 161 A.D.2d 610).
The defendant's other contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Hines, 205 A.D.2d 468; People v Proctor, 151 A.D.2d 788) or without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.