Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raymond Rizzo, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2001-01-11
Citations: 279 A.D.2d 314
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Rizzo, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 279
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Rizzo, Appellant.
[719 NYS2d 49]

Opinion:
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J., at suppression hearing; William Wetzel, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 5, 1998, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility. The evidence clearly warranted the conclusion that defendant was a participant in the drug operation whose role was to safeguard the money and drugs (see, People v Romero, 252 AD2d 356). The jury properly rejected defendant's incredible explanation of the transaction.
The trial court properly declined to submit criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree as a lesser included offense since no reasonable view of the evidence, which included the recovery of a large quantity of heroin and the prerecorded buy money from defendant, supports a finding of possession without intent to sell (see, People v Henry, 272 AD2d 238, lv denied 95 NY2d 890). Defendant's own testimony, even if credited, still established possession with intent to sell.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Probable cause for defendant's arrest was provided by a description that was sufficiently specific and accurate, given that defen dant was arrested at the specified location shortly after the drug transaction and was the only person present who matched the description (see, People v Mojica, 267 AD2d 19, lv denied 94 NY2d 950). Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.