Opinion
November 5, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demakos, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The trial court did not err in admitting rebuttal evidence offered by the People in response to defendant's attempt to prove that his presence in the burgled premises was innocent. This evidence tended to contradict defendant's testimony and to disprove his claim that he was but a good Samaritan who, upon passing near the premises, heard a burglar alarm sound, saw two teenagers run out of the premises, and subsequently entered the building to see if anyone needed assistance, having received no answer to his knocking on the door and window and hollering (see People v Harris, 57 N.Y.2d 335, 345, cert den. 460 U.S. 1047). Since the rebuttal evidence directly challenged the truth of what defendant stated with regard to the reason for his presence in the building, it cannot be said to be collateral (see People v Hill, 52 A.D.2d 609, 611).
We also note that defendant was not entitled to a justification charge. Not only did he fail to request such a charge but even considering the record in a light most favorable to him ( People v Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 529), the evidence would not support such a charge. The defense of justification could not excuse the crimes of which defendant was convicted (cf. People v Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 130) and the charge adequately informed the jury as to the requisite intent element of these crimes. Niehoff, J.P., Boyers, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.