People v. Flick

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the circumstantial evidence was not legally sufficient to support his conviction of arson in the third degree (Penal Law § 150.10). Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the People and granting it all reasonable inferences (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 437), we conclude that a valid line of reasoning exists whereby a rational trier of fact could have found defendant guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Bleakley, 69 NY 490, 495). Defendant was the only person present…