Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wilfred Woolridge, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1993-04-19
Citations: 192 A.D.2d 686
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilfred Woolridge, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 192
Pages: 686–686

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilfred Woolridge, Appellant.
[597 NYS2d 101]

Opinion:
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered August 11, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of marihuana in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence seized from the defendant.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. Penal Law § 220.25 (1) provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he presence of a controlled substance in an automobile, other than a public omnibus, is presumptive evidence of knowing possession thereof by each and every person in the automobile at the time such controlled substance was found". Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced at trial established that the State Troopers recovered drugs from a car the defendant was driving. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).
We find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.