Opinion
588
March 26, 2002.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Stackhouse, J.), rendered April 14, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 18 years, 18 years, 15 years and 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
ELEANOR J. OSTROW, for respondent.
BONNIE C. BRENNAN, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Ellerin, Lerner, JJ.
Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that he knowingly entered the building unlawfully is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. Upon our independent review, we also conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. "A person `enters or remains unlawfully' in or about premises when he is not licensed or privileged to do so." (Penal Law § 140.00). The jury could have reasonably concluded that a posted sign unequivocally warned defendant that visitors were not licensed to go beyond the building lobby unless they signed a registry at a desk (see, People v. Taylor, 190 A.D.2d 628, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1020). The evidence also warranted the conclusion that the effect of such notice was not undermined by the fact that visitors sometimes managed to enter without complying with the requirement of signing the registry.
To the extent that a portion of the prosecutor's summation may be viewed as containing an erroneous statement of law, it did not deprive defendant of a fair trial, since the court's charge was sufficient to prevent any prejudice and there was no pattern of egregious misconduct (see, People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 119, lv denied, 81 N.Y.2d 884).
On the record before us, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714).
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved, or expressly waived, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.