Opinion
October 4, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), defendant's guilt of the counts submitted to the jury was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient evidence, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). The issues raised by defendant concerning the credibility of prosecution witnesses were properly placed before the jury, and we find no reason on the record before us to disturb its determination. Nor is there merit to defendant's contention that the presumption under Penal Law § 165.55 (3) — a person who possesses two or more stolen credit cards is presumed to know that such credit cards were stolen — should not have been charged where defendant was charged in the indictment with two counts of possession of a stolen credit card only one of which was submitted to the jury. Evidence that defendant had possessed a second credit card was sufficient for purposes of the presumption, and need not have amounted to proof beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Baveghems, 107 A.D.2d 815, 816, citing Ulster County Ct. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 157; see also, at 167).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.