Opinion
February 25, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant's trial testimony constituted direct evidence of many of the principal facts in issue ( see, People v Licitra, 47 N.Y.2d 554, 558-559; People v Rumble, 45 N.Y.2d 879, 880). Since the People's case was not based solely upon circumstantial evidence, the defendant was not entitled to a "moral certainty" charge ( People v Ruiz, 52 N.Y.2d 929; People v Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375; People v Dukes, 97 A.D.2d 445). Moreover, the evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29), is sufficient to sustain the conviction. We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Titone, J.P., O'Connor, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.