Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Based upon a review of the record of the suppression hearing, we conclude that the victim's viewing and subsequent identification of the defendant at the police precinct was purely accidental (see, People v. Bookhart, 117 A.D.2d 739). Moreover, this inadvertent viewing was not the product of questionable police procedure (cf., People v. Joy, 114 A.D.2d 517, 521; People v. Smalls, 112 A.D.2d 173, 174). Thus, the identification testimony was properly admitted at trial.
The record further reveals that sufficient evidence was adduced at trial to establish the essential elements of burglary in the third degree. While there was no direct proof that the defendant entered the building, the hypothesis of guilt flowed naturally from the facts proved and was consistent with them (cf., People v. Marin, 102 A.D.2d 14, 27, affd 65 N.Y.2d 741; see, People v. Rodriguez, 102 A.D.2d 874). In addition, the accuracy of the victim's identification of the defendant was a question of credibility which the jury properly resolved (see, People v. Mojica, 122 A.D.2d 81; People v. Batts, 111 A.D.2d 761).
The defendant's claim of repugnancy of the verdict is not preserved for our review (see, People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985, 987; People v. James, 112 A.D.2d 380, 381). In any event, a review of the jury charge reveals the findings were not inherently contradictory (see, e.g., People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1; People v James, 112 A.D.2d 380, 382, supra).
Finally, the defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved and is, in any event, without merit. Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.