knife until defendant was taken into custody. However, Sergeant Weaver testified defendant, while holding a knife in his right hand and the recently stolen wallet in his left hand, threatened to harm Hernandez immediately after the short chase through the streets. Sergeant Weaver further testified that he first saw the knife in defendant’s hand right after defendant stood up after pushing Hernandez and taking his wallet. While defendant testified that he was holding a crack-pipe and not a knife in his hand, this contradiction is a matter for the jury to decide. Considering all evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was sufficient to send the charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon to the jury. See Bellamy, 159 N.C. App. at 147-49, 582 S.E.2d at 667-69 (<HOLDING>). This assignment of error is overruled. II
holding service on corporation proper where process server went to corporate defendants headquarters identified himself to an employee of corporate defendant and stated that he was there to serve legal papers and the employee then directed him to another employee who accepted service even though neither employee was authorized to accept service and neither represented that she was in fact so authorized because both were obviously corporate defendant employees and the employee redelivered the summons and complaint to an employee authorized to accept service on the same date holding that a rational juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of armed robbery against the supervisor who stood behind the counter with another employee and instructed that employee to comply with the defendants demand to turn over money from cash register holding that employee who resigned left voluntarily where employer accepted resignation told employee not to come to work anymore and paid employee through end of notice period holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously holding evidence was sufficient to withstand motion to dismiss armed robbery charge when the defendant took two videos fled the store pursued by an employee and brandished a pocketknife and threatened the pursuing employee at the end of the chase