Opinion
December 17, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It is well settled that the element of intent necessary to establish the crime of burglary in the second degree can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances (see, People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274; People v. Miller, 149 A.D.2d 737; People v. Middleton, 140 A.D.2d 550). Fingerprint evidence, although circumstantial in nature, is sufficient proof if it leads to a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and excludes every hypothesis of innocence (see, People v. Sparacino, 150 A.D.2d 814; People v. Vasquez, 131 A.D.2d 523; People v. Talley, 110 A.D.2d 792). The evidence adduced at trial established, inter alia, that a forcible entry into the respective dwellings of the complainants had occurred and that jewelry, cash, and other personal belongings had been taken from the complainants' dwellings. An expert in fingerprint identification testified that the fingerprints left by the burglar at the scenes of the crimes matched those of the defendant which were on file with the police department. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of innocence (see, People v. Betancourt, 68 N.Y.2d 707). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1025), or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.