People v. Howington

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his convictions of burglary in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and petit larceny (see, Penal Law § 155.25) are not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We disagree. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ) and bearing in mind that credibility is a matter to be resolved by the trier of the facts (see, People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196 , 204), we conclude that, in this circumstantial evidence case, the determination of defendant’s guilt is consistent with and flows naturally from the proven facts, and that those facts viewed as a whole exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt (see, People v Kennedy, supra, at 202 ; People v Cleague, 22 NY2d 363 , 365-366). (Appeal from Judgment of