Opinion
September 27, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in denying his request that the jury be instructed that it could infer that he was merely the knowing possessor of stolen property (see, People v Galbo, 218 N.Y. 283; People v Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374) is without merit. Under the facts of this case, there is no reasonable view of the evidence under which the jury could have concluded that the defendant possessed the items taken without also concluding that he must have committed the burglary in order to obtain these items (see, People v Howard, 60 N.Y.2d 999; People v Douze, 186 A.D.2d 753; People v Mitchell, 176 A.D.2d 897).
We find that the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Lawrence and Copertino, JJ., concur.