Opinion
November 24, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Despite the fact that burglary in the second degree may be committed by either entering or remaining unlawfully on the premises (Penal Law § 140.25), the instant indictment charged that the defendant had "entered and remained unlawfully" (emphasis supplied). The trial court did not err, however, in instructing the jury that they could render a verdict of guilty upon either finding (see, People v Charles, 61 N.Y.2d 321; People v Rooney, 57 N.Y.2d 822). Nor did it abuse its discretion (see, People v Reising, 106 A.D.2d 522) in refusing to adjourn the imposition of sentence, since the information in the presentence report which the defendant sought to controvert had no effect on the sentencing decision. The sentence imposed does not warrant modification on appeal (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Lazer, J.P., Thompson, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.