PEOPLE v. SKUPIEN (2006)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), grand larceny in the third degree (§ 155.35) and criminal mischief in the third degree (§ 145.05).   We reject defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient with respect to the burglary count.   The element of intent may be inferred from the circumstances of the entry, and here the People presented evidence establishing that the door to the subject premises was forcibly opened and that a safe was removed and emptied of its contents, including cash (see People v. Attfield, 31 A.D.3d 1187, 817 N.Y.S.2d 821, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 846, 823 N.Y.S.2d 775, 857 N.E.2d 70).   Furthermore, several witnesses testified that defendant admitted his involvement in the burglary, and they further testified that defendant purchased new clothing and a car shortly after the commission of the burglary.   Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we thus conclude that it is legally sufficient to support the burglary count (see generally People v. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926, 620 N.Y.S.2d 811, 644 N.E.2d 1367).   Defendant failed to specify the basis for seeking dismissal of the remaining counts and therefore failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient with respect to those counts (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 is without merit, and we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Contrary to defendant's further contention, County Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony of a police witness with respect to the absence of fingerprints at the crime scene (see generally People v. Lee, 96 N.Y.2d 157, 162, 726 N.Y.S.2d 361, 750 N.E.2d 63).

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

MEMORANDUM: