The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The element of identity was established by a compelling chain of circumstantial evidence. The location where defendant left his palm print strongly indicated that he left it at the time of the burglary, rather than on another occasion ( see e.g. People v Texeira, 32 AD3d 756, lv denied 7 NY3d 904). Additional evidence supported the conviction, including defendant's suspicious behavior at the scene several days before the crime, and his statements to the police that both evinced a consciousness of guilt and circumstantially linked him to the crime. Furthermore, there was ample evidence to establish defendant's unlawful entry into a building with intent to commit a crime.
The court's Sandoval ruling, which permitted only a very limited inquiry into defendant's extensive criminal background, balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion ( see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459).