Opinion
2011-12-27
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Shulamit Rosenblum Nemec of counsel; Elisheva Mochkin on the brief), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Shulamit Rosenblum Nemec of counsel; Elisheva Mochkin on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered April 13, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (two counts) and criminal mischief in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions of burglary in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of burglary in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. Ehikhamenor, 72 A.D.3d 700, 700–701, 900 N.Y.S.2d 90; People v. Diaz, 53 A.D.3d 504, 505, 862 N.Y.S.2d 73; People v. Figueroa, 167 A.D.2d 555, 562 N.Y.S.2d 225). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt with respect to the counts of burglary in the third degree was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902; People v. Ehikhamenor, 72 A.D.3d at 700–701, 900 N.Y.S.2d 90; People v. Diaz, 53 A.D.3d at 505, 862 N.Y.S.2d 73; People v. Figueroa, 167 A.D.2d at 555, 562 N.Y.S.2d 225).