Opinion
August 4, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the defendant's motion is denied in its entirety, so much of the judgment as convicted the defendant of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree is vacated, the sentence imposed thereon is vacated, the verdict convicting the defendant of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the imposition of sentence on that conviction.
A trial court's authority to set aside or modify a verdict is limited. Specifically, CPL 330.30 (1) permits a trial court to modify a verdict only on a ground which, if raised on appeal, would require a modification as a matter of law ( People v. Sadowski, 173 A.D.2d 873). Accordingly, only a claim of error that is properly preserved for appellate review will provide a basis to modify the verdict ( People v. James, 112 A.D.2d 380).
Here, the defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specific enough to preserve the issue of legal sufficiency for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245), and thus, the trial court was not empowered to modify the verdict on this ground ( see, People v James, supra).
In any event, 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 criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ritter, J.P., Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.