| People v Ehikhamenor |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02965 [72 AD3d 700] |
| April 6, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ojelede Ehikhamenor, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C.Abbot, and Marilyn A. Filingeri of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella,J.), rendered February 25, 2008, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminalmischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency ofthe evidence supporting his conviction of burglary in the second degree on the ground that hisintent to commit the crime was not established (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484,492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (seePeople v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant'sintent to commit a crime can be inferred from his conduct, including his unlawful entry bybreaking open the front door of the complainant's apartment (see People v Gilligan, 42NY2d 969 [1977]; People v Diaz,53 AD3d 504 [2008]; People vBrown, 36 AD3d 930 [2007]; People v Moore, 303 AD2d 691 [2003]).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the recordhere, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the acquittal on those counts of theindictment which alleged crimes committed inside the complainant's apartment did notundermine the weight and sufficiency of the evidence on the count of burglary in the seconddegree of which he was convicted (seePeople v Andolina, 23 AD3d 573 [2005]; People v Cannon, 1 AD3d 606 [2003]). Fisher, J.P., Leventhal,Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.