Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the burglary conviction because the People failed to establish that he entered the complainant's home with the intent to commit a crime therein. The complainant testified that a window screen had been cut and removed from the kitchen window. Accordingly, the defendant's intent to commit a crime could be inferred from the circumstances of the entry itself (see, People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274, 280; People v Henderson, 41 N.Y.2d 233, 237; People v. Lowman, 137 A.D.2d 622; People v. Terry, 43 A.D.2d 875).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find it was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Allen, 165 A.D.2d 786). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.