Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ernest Hill, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2003-02-03
Citations: 302 A.D.2d 406
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernest Hill, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 302
Pages: 406–407

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernest Hill, Appellant.
[753 NYS2d 904]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered January 25, 2001, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859; People v Fryar, 276 AD2d 641). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).
The defendant contends that because the People's case rested solely on the theory that the defendant unlawfully entered the employees' area of a laundromat, the trial court erred in charging the portion of Penal Law § 140.20 concerning "remain[ing] unlawfully" in a building. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Fabre, 288 AD2d 392). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, since the prosecution proceeded on a theory that the defendant had the requisite intent to commit a crime throughout the incident (see People v Currella, 296 AD2d 578; People v Fenderson, 203 AD2d 585, 586).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Townes, JJ., concur.