Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's failure to assert his claim before the trial court and prior to the discharge of the jury, that the jury's verdict, acquitting him of robbery in the second degree and robbery in the third degree and convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, is repugnant, renders that claim unpreserved for this court's review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985). The claim is, in any event, without merit since the elements of the crimes as charged are not identical, i.e., robbery entails force (see, People v Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, rearg denied 55 N.Y.2d 1039; People v Jackson, 69 A.D.2d 823). Nor can it be argued that the alleged factual inconsistency of the verdict and, in this regard, the defendant's claimed inability to demonstrate this inconsistency because of an inadequate record, furnish a basis for reversal (see, People v Tucker, supra; People v Montgomery, 116 A.D.2d 669). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.