Opinion
2001-00886
Submitted January 9, 2003.
February 4, 2003.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered January 25, 2001, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jack D. Jordan of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Camille O'Hara Gillespie of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 859; People v. Fryar, 276 A.D.2d 641). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15).
The defendant contends that because the People's case rested solely on the theory that the defendant unlawfully entered the employees' area of a laundromat, the trial court erred in charging the portion of Penal Law § 140.20 concerning "remain[ing] unlawfully" in a building. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v. Fabre, 288 A.D.2d 392). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, since the prosecution proceeded on a theory that the defendant had the requisite intent to commit a crime throughout the incident (see People v. Currella, 296 A.D.2d 578; People v. Fenderson, 203 A.D.2d 585, 586).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and TOWNES, JJ., concur.