Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find, contrary to the defendant's contentions, that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, there was sufficient evidence to permit the jury to find that the defendant, on two separate occasions, knowingly entered or remained unlawfully in the subject building with criminal intent, that on one such occasion he stole an IBM typewriter, and that on the other occasion he was apprehended with his hand in a drawer at a dental laboratory (see, Penal Law § 140.20, 140.00 Penal [2], [5]; § 155.25; People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274, 279; People v. James, 138 A.D.2d 745; People v Caraballo, 138 A.D.2d 725, 726; cf., People v. Way, 59 N.Y.2d 361, 366; People v. Powell, 58 N.Y.2d 1009, 1010). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Finally, the trial court, in imposing sentence, properly considered the defendant's background and prior criminal history, including those crimes for which he was never tried or convicted (see, People v. Marrero, 110 A.D.2d 785, 786). Under the circumstances, we do not find the imposition of the maximum sentence to be excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either meritless or unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Geurrero, 69 N.Y.2d 628, 630; People v. Bullock, 137 A.D.2d 825, 826; People v. Handy, 123 A.D.2d 398, 399) and in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Kooper, J.P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.