PEOPLE v. MARSHALL

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

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. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the complainant named in the indictment owned the property taken by the defendant (see Penal Law § 155.05). The People established that the named complainant, an accountant working in his client's office, had a right of possession to the office equipment taken which was superior to that of the defendant (see Penal Law § 155.00; § 155.05; § 160.00; People v. Hutchinson, 56 N.Y.2d 868; cf People v. Wilson, 93 N.Y.2d 222).

ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.