Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt of the crime of burglary in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt because his intoxication rendered him incapable of knowingly entering or remaining in a building with "the intent to commit a crime therein" (Penal Law § 140.20). However, "even an intoxicated person may be capable of forming the requisite intent" to commit a crime ( People v. Robinson, 161 A.D.2d 676), and it is for the jury to determine if the defendant's intoxication negated the element of intent ( see, People v. King, 224 A.D.2d 547; People v. Dorst, 194 A.D.2d 622; People v. Robinson, supra). Viewing the evidence adduced at trial 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 beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant broke into a store with the requisite intent to commit a crime therein. 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 defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit.
Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.