Opinion
June 29, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's unpreserved contention, the proof was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant either knew that a nonparticipant in the arson was in the building at the time the defendant started the fire, or that the circumstances were such as to render the presence of another person in the building a reasonable possibility (see, Penal Law § 150.15). 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 sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Rosenblatt, J. P., O'Brien, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.