Does the loan of the money to defendant by the alleged loanshark constitute insufficient evidence for possession of the proceeds of a robbery?

Here defendant offered as his explanation for possession of part of the robbery proceeds the loan of the money to him by the alleged loanshark. In light of his knowledge of the robbery within less than half an hour after it occurred, the clothing and other items found in his room that matched what the robber had worn and used, and the admittedly false story first told to the investigator, that explanation was not strong enough to render the People's evidence insufficient (cf. People v. Volpe, 20 N.Y.2d 9, 13, 281 N.Y.S.2d 295, 228 N.E.2d 365). Moreover, in view of defendant's knowledge of the robbery before the alleged loan transaction and the markings on the wrappers in which the money was contained when he paid it over to [60 N.Y.2d 384] the car dealer, the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant was aware that he possessed stolen money even if he did not steal it (see People v. Batten, 31 N.Y.2d

Page 652