Opinion
September 25, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence establishing that the house was a "[d]welling", pursuant to Penal Law § 140.00 (3), is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the house was a "[d]welling", which is defined as "a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night" (Penal Law § 140.00; People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v Windbush, 202 A.D.2d 527).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.