Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not move for a trial order of dismissal ( see CPL 290.10, 470.05; People v. Bailey, 19 AD3d 431; People v. Medaro, 277 AD2d 252, 253; People v. Gonzalez, 183 AD2d 725, 726). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15; People v. Nylander, 21 AD3d 500).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's claim regarding the prosecutor's summation is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Anderson, 24 AD3d 460). The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or do not require reversal.