Majority
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered June 6, 2013, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to present legally sufficient evidence of his guilt of burglary in the second degree. Contrary to his contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 , 621 [1983]), the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the apartment unlawfully entered by the defendant was a dwelling within the meaning of Penal Law § 140.00 (3) at the time of the burglary (see Penal Law § 140.25 [2]; People v McCray, 23 NY3d 621 , 630 [2014]; People v Barney, 99 NY2d 367 , 370-371 [2003]; People v Henry, 64 AD3d 804 , 805 [2009]; People v Abarrategui, 306 AD2d 20 , 21 [2003]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to the count of burglary in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 , 644-645 [2006]).
Furthermore, because there was no reasonable view of the evidence that the apartment at issue was not a dwelling within
Cases cited
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 at 621 p. 845
- People v. McCray 23 NY3d 621 at 630 p. 845
- People v. Barney 99 NY2d 367 at 370-371 p. 845
- People v. Henry 64 AD3d 804 at 805 p. 845
- People v. Romero 7 NY3d 633 at 644-645 p. 845
- People v. Sheirod 124 AD2d 14 p. 846