Opinion
October 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). The defendant's recent and exclusive possession of some of the jewelry which had been taken from the victim some 15 minutes before the search, together with the absence of any credible evidence that the crime was committed by someone else, justified the inference that the defendant was in fact the victim's attacker (see, People v. Marshall, 198 A.D.2d 907). The fact that the defendant was not dressed as he had been during the attack was properly placed before the jury, and we find no reason to disturb its resolution of this issue (see, People v. Stokes, 203 A.D.2d 127). The jury could reasonably have found that the defendant's explanation of having acquired the stolen jewelry after the robbery was not worthy of belief (see, People v Marshall, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.