Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that his guilt was not established by legally sufficient evidence because the People did not prove that he knowingly possessed stolen property (see, Penal Law former § 165.50). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant knowingly had constructive possession of the stolen truck and its contents even though he was not driving the truck (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621; People v Hadley, 67 A.D.2d 259, 262; People v Peters, 43 A.D.2d 599; People v Howard, 37 A.D.2d 178, 180; CPL 470.15). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.