Opinion
July 9, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Initially, we note that the defendant's claim that the Grand Jury proceedings resulting in his indictment were defective is not reviewable on this appeal from the ensuing judgment of conviction, which, contrary to the defendant's contention, we find, as hereinafter explained, to be supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, CPL 210.30; People v. Hall, 143 A.D.2d 937; cf., People v. Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97; People v Alexander, 136 A.D.2d 332, 334-335). In any event, the allegedly false testimony given before the Grand Jury related only to the burglary charge, a charge of which the defendant was acquitted.
The defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence recovered from the basement of his house is without merit. The record supports the hearing court's determination that the defendant's brother, who lived with the defendant, was authorized to and did consent to the entry of the police officers into the house and the basement (see, People v. Cosme, 48 N.Y.2d 286, 290), and that the evidence at issue was in plain view in the basement (see, People v. Jackson, 41 N.Y.2d 146, 150).
Also without merit is the defendant's contention that the People failed to prove that he knowingly possessed the property recovered from the basement of his house. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant was in constructive possession of the stolen items found in the basement of his house (see, People v. Torres, 68 N.Y.2d 677, 679), and that his possession was knowing (see, People v. Reisman, 29 N.Y.2d 278, 285-286, cert denied 405 U.S. 1041). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 248-251). Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and O'Brien, JJ., concur.