Opinion
April 14, 1993
Appeal from the of Erie County Court, Rogowski, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his conviction of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We disagree. Although the evidence was entirely circumstantial, viewing it in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621; People v Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196, 203), and assuming that the fact-finder credited the prosecution witnesses and drew all reasonable inferences in the prosecution's favor, we conclude that the determination of defendant's guilt is consistent with and flows naturally from the proven facts and that the facts viewed as a whole exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt (see, People v Betancourt, 68 N.Y.2d 707, 709-710; People v Kennedy, supra, at 202; People v Howington, 185 A.D.2d 654, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 975).
Defendant's conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree was not against the weight of the evidence. In our view, the evidence, including the defendant's conflicting testimony concerning his receipt of the stolen goods, presented an issue of credibility that was reasonably resolved by the trial court and we see no reason to disturb that resolution (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495; see also, People v Aliotta, 176 A.D.2d 1198).
We do not find the sentence imposed by County Court to be either harsh or excessive.