PEOPLE v. EASON

Judgment affirmed.

The totality of the evidence permits no reasonable hypothesis except that of defendant's guilt. The fact that defendant was identified by witnesses as the only person in the immediate vicinity of the house he was accused of attempting to burglarize, both before and after the alarm sounded, coupled with the fact that the rear door to the house was found open and its paint recently damaged, are facts which are all consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, thereby justifying the jury's inference of guilt ( see, People v. Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196). Mollen, P.J., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.