Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to defendant's assertions, the evidence at trial demonstrated that as a lookout, he was properly convicted of robbery in the second degree under the theory of an accomplice "actually present" during the commission of the robbery herein within the meaning of Penal Law § 160.10 (1). Specifically, since the codefendants were each "aided by another person actually present" during the crime, they were both found guilty of robbery in the second degree, with defendant, as their accomplice, bearing criminal liability for the same offense. (Penal Law § 160.10.) Although defendant contends that the People's witnesses did not provide credible testimony in view of a prior history of drug abuse, it is well settled that it is the function of the jurors to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses (People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 47).
We have examined defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.