Opinion
May 14, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant, while operating a motor vehicle, was stopped by a police officer for a traffic violation (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [a]). At the time of the stop, it was determined that the defendant's driver's license had been suspended and the defendant was then arrested for operating a motor vehicle without a valid license (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511).
The defendant was the only occupant of his vehicle at the time of his arrest. Accordingly, based on established police department procedure, his car was impounded and the contents inventoried. Items seized during this routine administrative search were properly deemed admissible at trial by the hearing court (see, South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364; People v Gonzalez, 62 N.Y.2d 386; see also, People v. Cammock, 144 A.D.2d 375; People v. Italia, 138 A.D.2d 743; People v. Dixon, 130 A.D.2d 680).
The defendant was stopped in the vicinity of a residence that had been burglarized, shortly after the burglary occurred. Four handbags that had been taken from the burglarized premises were found on the front seat of his car. Contained in the handbags were various other items that had also been taken during the burglary.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant's recent, conscious and exclusive possession of some of the fruits of the burglary justified the inference that he had burglarized the subject premises (see, People v Green, 128 A.D.2d 890; People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374). It cannot be reasonably inferred from these facts that the defendant was either innocent or a mere possessor of the stolen property. Rather, under the facts of this case, the evidence excludes to a moral certainty every hypothesis other than that the defendant was guilty of the burglary (see, People v. Alvarez, 116 A.D.2d 725; see also, People v. Brooks, 144 A.D.2d 1012; People v Flores, 122 A.D.2d 806).
The indictment did not charge the defendant with accessorial liability. Nevertheless, the trial court properly permitted proof that tended to establish that the defendant acted in concert with others in the commission of the burglary (see, People v. Coker, 135 A.D.2d 723; People v. Monahan, 114 A.D.2d 380; Matter of Silverstro v. Kavanagh, 98 A.D.2d 833; see also, People v. Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 79-80, cert denied 442 U.S. 910).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.