Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and affording it the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 432 U.S. 969; People v. Milea, 112 A.D.2d 1011, 1012), we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant's recent, conscious and exclusive possession of the stolen typewriter and the absence of any other person in the vicinity who could possibly have committed the burglary justified the inference that he had burglarized the subject premises (see, People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 383; People v. Slater, 115 A.D.2d 672; People v. Miller, 114 A.D.2d 863, 864). The facts presented are totally inconsistent with the defendant's innocence or with the notion that he was a mere possessor of stolen property. Under the totality of the circumstances, the evidence excludes to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis other than that the defendant was guilty of the burglary and was not merely coincidentally present at the scene (see, People v Marin, 65 N.Y.2d 741; People v. Way, 59 N.Y.2d 361, 365; People v Jackson, 117 A.D.2d 822, 823). Bracken, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.