Opinion
March 24, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Goodman, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (People v Allah, 71 N.Y.2d 830), defendant's guilt of knowing possession of the stolen property was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. Whether defendant was in recent and exclusive possession of the stolen property was essentially a factual issue (see, People v Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 382-383) and it was not error for the court to submit an instruction that the jury could draw this inference.
Defendant's challenge to the purported introduction of evidence of uncharged crimes was not raised at an appropriate time by specific objection, and is therefore unpreserved for review as a matter of law. Were we to consider it we would find the argument to be without merit.
The court meaningfully responded to the jury's note (People v Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 301-302, cert denied 459 U.S. 847), and, in seeking clarification, properly requested the jury to limit its readback request to relevant portions of the testimony (see, People v Charkow, 142 A.D.2d 734).
We have reviewed defendant's claims in respect to the prosecutor's summation and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.