ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the verdict because "the only basis for concluding that [he] was the perpetrator of this burglary * * * was the two fingerprints found on the VCR which was discarded by the burglar while being chased by Mr. Schwanneman". 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. Murray, 168 A.D.2d 572, 573; see, also, People v. Jones, 245 A.D.2d 465; People v. Sital, 220 A.D.2d 784, 785; People v. Minore, 110 A.D.2d 661; People v. Sparacino, 150 A.D.2d 814; People v. Vasquez, 131 A.D.2d 523; People v. Talley, 110 A.D.2d 792, 793; People v. Pena, 99 A.D.2d 846, 846-847; People v. Bullard, 59 A.D.2d 786, 786-787). 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).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
BRACKEN, P.J., McGINITY, LUCIANO and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.