Opinion
November 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence adduced at the 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 the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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).
We do not agree with the defendant's contention that the court erred in failing to charge the jury that his mere presence in the building where the drugs were allegedly discovered was not sufficient to prove possession. Although the mere presence of the defendant in the building would have been an insufficient predicate for a conviction (People v Davis, 153 A.D.2d 949), the court's charge to the jury, viewed as a whole, and, in particular, its charge on circumstantial evidence, adequately conveyed to the jury the proper standards for evaluating the evidence presented (see, People v Kurtish, 165 A.D.2d 670), and eliminated any danger that a conviction would be based on the mere presence of the defendant in the building.
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273; People v Foster, 64 N.Y.2d 1144, cert denied 474 U.S. 857). Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.