Opinion
July 7, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Braun, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's claim that we are required to apply a "moral certainty" standard of review, "[g]enerally, including a circumstantial evidence case, `the standard of [appellate] review in determining whether the evidence before the jury was legally sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, could lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt' * * * [T]he test for appellate review * * * is the same for both direct and circumstantial evidence" ( People v. Rossey, 89 N.Y.2d 970, 971-972, quoting People v. Cabey, 85 N.Y.2d 417, 420-421; see also, People v. Norman, 85 N.Y.2d 609, 620).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.