Opinion
2011-12-20
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ricardo RAMOS, also known as Ricardo Ramos, Jr., appellant.
David A. Brodsky, Central Valley, N.Y., for appellant. Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
David A. Brodsky, Central Valley, N.Y., for appellant. Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered January 13, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's sole contention on this appeal is that the People failed to present legally sufficient evidence of his guilt of burglary in the second degree. Contrary to the defendant's contention, 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), it was legally sufficient to establish that the subject house was a “[d]welling” within the meaning of Penal Law § 140.00(3) ( see Penal Law § 140.25[2]; People v. Barney, 99 N.Y.2d 367, 371–372, 756 N.Y.S.2d 132, 786 N.E.2d 31; People v. Henry, 64 A.D.3d 804, 805, 881 N.Y.S.2d 701; People v. Montgomery, 1 A.D.3d 984, 984, 767 N.Y.S.2d 533; People v. Abarrategui, 306 A.D.2d 20, 21, 761 N.Y.S.2d 632; People v. Sheirod, 124 A.D.2d 14, 17–18, 510 N.Y.S.2d 945; see also People v. Cummings, 16 N.Y.3d 784, 919 N.Y.S.2d 500, 944 N.E.2d 1139, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, ––––, 132 S.Ct. 203, –––L.Ed.2d ––––, –––– [2011]; cf. People v. Quattlebaum, 91 N.Y.2d 744, 748, 675 N.Y.S.2d 585, 698 N.E.2d 421; People v. Lowe, 284 A.D.2d 413, 414, 728 N.Y.S.2d 167).