PEOPLE v. SWINGLE

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from her conviction for attempted criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree, defendant's primary contention is that the evidence is legally insufficient. Assuming that the proof against defendant was wholly circumstantial, we conclude that it was sufficient to rule out all reasonable hypotheses of innocence and to establish defendant's guilt to a moral certainty (see, People v Way, 59 N.Y.2d 361, 365; People v Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29, 32; People v Seifert, 152 A.D.2d 433, 440, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 924, citing People v Morgan, 66 N.Y.2d 255, 256, on remittitur 116 A.D.2d 919, cert denied 476 U.S. 1120).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.