People v. Rahim

90 A.D.3d 1077, 934 N.Y.2d 847

Opinion

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 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), 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 AD3d 700, 700-701 [2010]; People v Diaz, 53 AD3d 504, 505 [2008]; People v Figueroa, 167 AD2d 555 [1990]). 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 NY3d 633 [2006]; People v Ehikhamenor, 72 AD3d at 700-701; People v Diaz, 53 AD3d at 505; People v Figueroa, 167 AD2d at 555). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.