People v. Hodgins

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 , 621), establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the entry by defendant into his cousin’s cabin was unlawful (see, People v Barnes, 210 AD2d 491 , lv denied 85 NY2d 906 ); the cabin is a “dwelling” as defined in Penal Law § 140.00 (3) (see, People v Sheirod, 124 AD2d 14 , 17-18, lv denied 70 NY2d 656 ); and defendant intended to commit a crime when he entered the cabin (see, People v Mitchell, 254 AD2d 830 , 831, lv denied 92 NY2d 984 ). We also reject defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree (Penal Law § 135.05; see, People v Boyd, 122 AD2d 273 , 275). County Court properly permitted the People to introduce expert testimony regarding learned helplessness syndrome and battered woman syndrome (see, People v Hryckewicz, 221 AD2d 990 , 990-991, lv denied 88 NY2d 849 ). Defendant’s contention that the court’s burglary charge is erroneous is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Dwyer, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.