Opinion
May 1, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was not entitled to a circumstantial evidence charge herein because the case did not rest entirely upon circumstantial evidence (see, People v Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375; see also, People v Daddona, 81 N.Y.2d 990; People v Johnson, 65 N.Y.2d 556; People v Holmes, 204 A.D.2d 243; People v Lopez, 200 A.D.2d 525; People v Gonzalez, 199 A.D.2d 412; People v Landfair, 191 A.D.2d 825).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the subject taxicab and jacket were stolen. 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). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Thompson and Santucci, JJ., concur.