| People v Weakfall |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06748 [87 AD3d 1353] |
| September 30, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexander R.Weakfall, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Nicole M. Fantigrossi of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), renderedSeptember 15, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of burglary inthe third degree, petit larceny and criminal mischief in the fourth degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a nonjury trial, ofburglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), petit larceny (§ 155.25), andcriminal mischief in the fourth degree (§ 145.00 [1]). Even assuming, arguendo, thatdefendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People's proof was specificallydirected at the alleged legal insufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction raised bydefendant on appeal (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]), we conclude thatdefendant failed to renew that motion after presenting evidence and therefore failed to preservefor our review his present contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficientevidence (see People v Lane, 7NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], reargdenied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]). In any event, that contention is without merit. "It is well settledthat, even in circumstantial evidence cases, the standard for appellate review of legal sufficiencyissues is 'whether any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rationalperson to the conclusion reached by the [factfinder] on the basis of the evidence at trial, viewedin the light most favorable to the People' " (Hines, 97 NY2d at 62; see People v Daniels, 75 AD3d1169 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 892 [2010]). Here, the circumstantial evidence,including the track of footprints in the fresh snow leading from the scene of the crime to thelocation where defendant was arrested and his exclusive possession of copper pipe taken in thecourse of the burglary, provides legally sufficient evidence to support the conviction (see People v Session, 48 AD3d1067 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 816 [2008]; see generally People vBaskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 382 [1983]). Furthermore, although a different result would nothave been unreasonable (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), weconclude upon viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trialthat it cannot be said that County Court failed to give the evidence the weight it should beaccorded (see generally People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]; Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni, Green and Martoche, JJ.