—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a bench trial of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and criminal mischief in the second degree (Penal Law § 145.10) arising from his forced entry into his fiancee’s home. We reject defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of burglary in the second degree (see, People v Bleakley,
We conclude, however, that the conviction of criminal mischief in the second degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The fiancee’s “general approximation of the cost of repairing or replacing various property items” is insufficient to establish the amount of damage (People v Brantley,
The contentions of defendant with respect to the denial of his CPL 440.10 motion are not properly before us (see, CPL 450.15 [1]). We have reviewed the contentions raised by defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Donalty, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Lawton, JJ.
