Defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence that he entered the dwelling with the "intent to commit a crime therein", where he had been discovered in the closet of the complainant's apartment at a time when the front door had been barricaded from the inside and the apartment had been ransacked ( People v. Irrizary, 183 A.D.2d 630, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 895). Moreover, defendant's conduct in hiding in the closet, blurting out that "there were other people" involved and running from the apartment evinced a consciousness of guilt ( supra).
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The matters raised by defendant in the Grand Jury testimony read into the record, such as his contention that he happened to be inside the apartment because he had entered an open door in order to look after the complainant's well-being, presented issues of credibility that were properly placed before the jury and we find no reason to disturb its determination ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions, including that the trial court's evidentiary rulings were unduly prejudicial, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rubin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.