Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant contends that his threatened use of force was not sufficiently proximate in time to his taking of property to constitute threatening the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of retaining property "immediately after the taking" (Penal Law § 160.00 [1]). We disagree (see, People v Dekle,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.