Judgment affirmed.
The evidence was sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of the crime of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant's recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of the crime justified the inference that he had burglarized the premises in question (see, People v Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374; Knickerbocker v People, 43 N.Y. 177). The testimony elicited from defendant, through which he attempted to explain his possession of the fruits of the crime, contained inconsistencies. We find that there was a reasonable basis upon which the jury could find that the provided explanation was false (see, People v Thornton, 104 A.D.2d 426).
The other contentions raised by defendant have been examined and found to be meritless. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.