Judgment affirmed.
On the afternoon of November 10, 1982, the defendant and two others participated in robbing the complainant of four gold chains and $80 in cash at gunpoint in the complainant's car in Queens County. The complainant testified that the defendant and an unapprehended accomplice had handguns during the robbery. The defendant admitted being present in the complainant's car during the robbery but denied having a gun.
The defendant contends that the jury's verdict of guilty of robbery in the first degree was repugnant to its verdict of not guilty of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree. However, his claim of a repugnant verdict was not preserved for appellate review. The defendant failed to object to the allegedly repugnant verdict prior to the discharge of the jury and his motion to set aside the verdict was untimely since it was made only after the jury had been discharged. At the time the motion was made it was too late to remedy the defect, if any, by resubmission to the jury for reconsideration of its verdict (see, People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745, 746; People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048, 1050; People v Figueroa, 96 A.D.2d 515).
We see no abuse of discretion in the court's limitation on cross-examination of the complainant (see, People v. Sorge, 301 N.Y. 198, 202).
Finally, there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). Lazer, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.