| People v Clark |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06710 [76 AD3d 916] |
| September 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Livingston Clark, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Brian E. Rodkey of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered February 11,2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencinghim, as a second felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibilitydeterminations. The element of identity was established by a compelling chain of circumstantialevidence. The location where defendant left his palm print strongly indicated that he left it at thetime of the burglary, rather than on another occasion (see e.g. People v Texeira, 32 AD3d 756 [2006], lv denied 7NY3d 904 [2006]). Additional evidence supported the conviction, including defendant'ssuspicious behavior at the scene several days before the crime, and his statements to the policethat both evinced a consciousness of guilt and circumstantially linked him to the crime.Furthermore, there was ample evidence to establish defendant's unlawful entry into a buildingwith intent to commit a crime.
The court's Sandoval ruling, which permitted only a very limited inquiry intodefendant's extensive criminal background, balanced the appropriate factors and was a properexercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People vWalker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Acosta,Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.