| People v Scipio |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03204 [61 AD3d 899] |
| April 21, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AlScipio, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anne C. Feigus, andDanielle Gurkin of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.),rendered August 3, 2006, convicting him of burglary in the first degree and criminal possessionof a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legallysufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant entered the complainant'sapartment unlawfully (see Penal Law § 140.30 [3]). Moreover, upon ourindependent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was notagainst the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Any discrepancies between the complainant'sprior statements to a police officer and the complainant's trial testimony, and any inconsistenciesbetween the complainant's testimony and the testimony of other prosecution witnesses, were notof such magnitude as to render the complainant's testimony incredible or unreliable (see People v Almonte, 23 AD3d392, 393 [2005]; People v Lambert, 272 AD2d 413, 414 [2000]).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding certain evidenceregarding the complainant's purported gang membership and hostility toward the defendant,because such evidence [*2]was too remote and speculative(see People v Thomas, 46 NY2d 100, 105 [1978]; People v Walsh, 35 AD3d 637 [2006]; People v Monroe, 30 AD3d 616,617 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.