Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There was sufficient evidence presented at the trial from which the jury could infer that the defendant intended to commit a crime inside the premises, particularly in view of the circumstances surrounding the break in (see, People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 381; People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274, 280; People v Gilligan, 42 N.Y.2d 969).
We have frequently condemned the language which the court used in its instruction on reasonable doubt (see, e.g., People v Smith, 121 A.D.2d 411; People v. Fisher, 112 A.D.2d 378; People v Harvey, 111 A.D.2d 185). However in the case at bar a new trial is not warranted since the error of law has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Martinez, 118 A.D.2d 661), and, moreover, the charge as a whole adequately conveyed to the jury the appropriate burden of proof (see, People v Samuels, 121 A.D.2d 751; People v. Valdivia, 108 A.D.2d 885). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.