Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Albert SPRINGS, Appellant.

Decided: November 30, 1998

JOHN COPERTINO, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN and ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ. M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Kerry Elgarten of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Robin A. Forshaw, and Joyce A. Smith of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered October 8, 1996, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, endangering the welfare of a child, and harassment in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt.   Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5] ).

The defendant's contention that the court improperly permitted the People to elicit evidence of his prior thefts from, and acts of violence against, the complainant, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.15[2] ).  In any event, this claim is without merit, insofar as the prior bad acts were probative of the defendant's intent to commit a crime when he broke down the door to the complainant's residence (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242-243, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808;  People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59).

The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).


Copied to clipboard