Opinion
December 10, 1984
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the People, as it must be at this stage, the evidence adduced at trial is plainly sufficient to sustain the conviction ( People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert den ___ US ___, 53 USLW 3324; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). The otherwise unexplained presence of defendant's fresh palm-print at the point of entry of the premises, together with the complainant's identification, "pointed ineluctably to the defendant's guilt and was sufficient to exclude to a moral certainty any other reasonable hypothesis" ( People v. Gates, 24 N.Y.2d 666, 669; see, also, People v. Pena, 99 A.D.2d 846; People v Hall, 89 A.D.2d 898; People v. Bullard, 59 A.D.2d 786; People v Jones, 257 App. Div. 5, 10; Ann., 28 ALR2d 1115, 1150-1155). Titone, J.P., Gibbons, Bracken and Weinstein, JJ., concur.