Opinion
May 31, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's decision to permit inquiry into one of the defendant's numerous prior burglary convictions was neither an improvident exercise of discretion nor unduly prejudicial to the defendant (see, People v Boyd, 156 A.D.2d 701; People v Hamlin, 153 A.D.2d 644; People v Mercado, 117 A.D.2d 627; People v Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, affd 46 N.Y.2d 882).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant's recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of the crime justified the inference that he had burglarized the premises in question (see, People v Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374). There was clearly a reasonable basis upon which the jury could conclude that the explanation provided was false (see, People v Alvarez, 116 A.D.2d 725; People v Thornton, 104 A.D.2d 426).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.