Opinion
March 13, 1992
Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his conviction of arson in the third degree, based solely upon circumstantial evidence, was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We disagree. In considering defendant's contention, we must assume that the jury credited the prosecution witnesses and drew all reasonable inferences in the prosecution's favor (see, People v Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196, 203; People v Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29, 32). Viewing the evidence in that light, we conclude that it excluded to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt (see, People v Betancourt, 68 N.Y.2d 707, 709-710; People v Herrera, 136 A.D.2d 567, 568, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 1007).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.