| People v Session |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00778 [48 AD3d 1067] |
| February 1, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jimmie L.Session, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Loretta S. Courtney of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), renderedJanuary 3, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of, inter alia, burglary inthe third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict ofburglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), criminal mischief in the fourth degree(§ 145.00 [1]), and petit larceny (§ 155.25). Contrary to defendant's contention, theconviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see generally People v Bleakley,69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). According to the evidence presented by the People at trial, abasement window of the victim's house was broken, the drop ceiling of the basement was torndown, and most of the copper piping had been removed, and a neighbor observed defendantwalking across the neighbor's front yard while carrying copper piping and looking over hisshoulder. The neighbor followed defendant, whereupon defendant ran between houses andreappeared next to a vehicle, no longer carrying the copper piping. Defendant ignored theneighbor's request to stop, and he drove away in the vehicle. Although defendant explained to thepolice that he was in the neighborhood in order to pick up an individual who had asked for a ride,he failed to explain why he had been seen carrying the copper piping. Based on defendant'sunexplained, recent and exclusive possession of the stolen copper piping, the jury was entitled toinfer that defendant committed the crimes of which he was convicted (see People vBaskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 382 [1983]; People v Marshall, 198 AD2d 907 [1993],lv denied 82 NY2d 898 [1993]; People v McClam, 173 AD2d 861 [1991], lvdenied 78 NY2d 1078 [1991]). We reject defendant's further contention that the verdict isagainst the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.