Opinion
August 4, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the judgment as convicted the defendant of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree is dismissed as academic in light of our determination in People v. Thomas ( 242 A.D.2d 281 [decided herewith]); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed.
The defendant contends that the Trial Judge failed to instruct the jury adequately that a person who operates a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner is presumed to know that he does not have such consent. We disagree. The court's instructions closely followed the New York Criminal Jury Instructions ( see, 2 CJI[NY] PL 165.05 [1], at 971-975), and were thorough and not misleading ( see, People v. Rivers, 140 A.D.2d 897). The trial court correctly told the jury that the presumption was permissible and that "the fact that you may draw such inference does not shift the burden to the defendant in any way" ( see, People v. Simmons, 32 N.Y.2d 250).
Ritter, J.P., Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.