PEOPLE v. BRACTION (2006)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a nonjury trial, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25[2] ) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (§ 165.40).   Defendant waived his contention that he was denied the opportunity to testify before the grand jury by failing to move to dismiss the indictment on that ground within five days of his arraignment on the indictment (see CPL 190.50[5] [c];  People v. Beyor, 272 A.D.2d 929, 930, 708 N.Y.S.2d 535, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 832, 713N.Y.S.2d 139, 735 N.E.2d 419).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919).   In any event, we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   There is a “ valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences [that] could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the fact finder on the basis of the [circumstantial] evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People” (People v. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926, 620 N.Y.S.2d 811, 644 N.E.2d 1367;  see People v. Santana, 156 A.D.2d 933, 933-934, 548 N.Y.S.2d 822, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 924, 555 N.Y.S.2d 43, 554 N.E.2d 80).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: