| People v Vantassel |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03468 [95 AD3d 907] |
| May 1, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JohnE. Vantassel, Jr., Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel),for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes,J.), both rendered February 19, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the second degree underindictment No. 52/08, and burglary in the second degree (nine counts) under indictment No.75/08, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant toCPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633 [2006]). The testimony of the defendant's accomplice was sufficientlycorroborated by testimony identifying the vehicle used during each of the burglaries and byevidence that several of the items stolen during the burglaries were recovered in the defendant'shome (see CPL 60.22 [1]; People v Brown, 62 AD3d 1089, 1090-1091 [2009]; see also People v Reome, 15 NY3d188, 191-192 [2010]; People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286, 292-294 [1994]; People vSteinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 683 [1992]; People v Morales, 86 AD3d 147, 162 [2011], lv granted 17NY3d 904 [2011]; People vDelgado, 50 AD3d 915, 917 [2008]; People v Montefusco, 44 AD3d 879, 880 [2007]).
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in failing to provide the jury with acharge on accessorial liability is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Brown, 232 AD2d 750, 752 [1996]; People v Graham, 122 AD2d 162[1986]) and, in any event, is without merit.
The sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Hall, Lott and Austin,JJ., concur.