DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the fingerprint evidence was inadequate to connect him to the crimes for which he was convicted. Fingerprint evidence, although circumstantial in nature, is sufficient proof if it leads to a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence ( see People v. Hirsch, 280 A.D.2d 612; People v. Murray, 168 A.D.2d 573). The record established that the defendant's fingerprint was found on the bottom of a cigar box at the crime scene, and that the cigar box was kept in an area inaccessible to the public. 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 beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. Harden, 174 A.D.2d 691; People v. Vasquez, 131 A.D.2d 523; People v. DiBlasi, 130 A.D.2d 679; People v. Mercado, 117 A.D.2d 627).
SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT and MASTRO, JJ., concur.