Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find that the defendant was guilty, as charged, of burglary in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 140.25), criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 165.40) and petit larceny (see, Penal Law § 155.25; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621). The issue of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be afforded any inconsistency in their testimony was within the province of the jury (see, People v. Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755; People v Rosenfeld, 93 A.D.2d 872). The defendant's knowing, recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of the crime allowed the jury to infer that the defendant had committed the burglary (see, People v. Galbo, 218 N.Y. 283, 290; Knickerbocker v. People, 43 N.Y. 177; People v. Donaldson, 107 A.D.2d 758, 759).
We find the defendant's remaining contentions to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.