Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
Viewing the evidence 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 the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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).
Although the court erred in allowing the People, as part of their direct case, to prove that the defendant had pleaded guilty to a similar crime in 1978, under the circumstances presented — where the evidence of guilt is overwhelming — the error was harmless (see, People v. Lowe, 91 A.D.2d 1100; People v. Murray, 90 A.D.2d 640). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's charge on circumstantial evidence was proper. It is not necessary that the words "moral certainty" be used in a circumstantial evidence charge (People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428; People v Gonzalez, 54 N.Y.2d 729).
Finally, we decline to disturb the sentence (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.