Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention that the single count of the indictment charging defendant with grand larceny in the third degree is duplicitous (see, CPL 200.30; People v. Davis, 72 N.Y.2d 32, 38) because it charges him with both larceny by false pretenses (Penal Law § 155.05 [a]) and larceny by false promise (Penal Law § 155.05 [d]). The People are not required to allege "the particular theory of larceny" in the indictment (Penal Law § 155.45; see, People v. Farruggia, 41 A.D.2d 894), and Supreme Court, as trier of the facts, was entitled to consider the proof supporting both theories under the single count of the indictment (see, People v. Cannon, 194 A.D.2d 496, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 715).
Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial when the court entertained an application for an order to show cause in a related civil proceeding (see, People v. Brown, 24 N.Y.2d 168). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), is sufficient to support the conviction, and the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).