People v. Armour

*355The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial to establish his guilt of the two counts of robbery in the first degree premised upon his accomplice’s display of what appeared to be a handgun (see, Penal Law § 160.15 [4]) and his own use of a dangerous instrument (see, Penal Law § 160.15 [3]), respectively.

With respect to count one, a review of the record shows that the accomplice held his hand in his jacket pocket in such a way that it appeared to the complainants that he had a gun (see, People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374; People v Knowles, 79 AD2d 116). Moreover,…