Opinion
January 27, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The evidence was sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of the crime of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant's recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of the crime justified the inference that he had burglarized the premises in question (see, People v Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374; Knickerbocker v People, 43 N.Y. 177). The testimony elicited from defendant, through which he attempted to explain his possession of the fruits of the crime, contained inconsistencies. We find that there was a reasonable basis upon which the jury could find that the provided explanation was false (see, People v Thornton, 104 A.D.2d 426).
The other contentions raised by defendant have been examined and found to be meritless. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.