Court Opinion

ID: 9806556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 19:12:39.09959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:08:49.642023
License: Public Domain

Dillon, J.P.,
dissents, and votes to affirm the judgment. I respectfully dissent from my colleagues, and vote to affirm the judgment of conviction.
During the early morning hours of May 22, 2010, the defendant was attending a “Booty Ranch” party at a two-story building on Sutphin Avenue in Queens, where men meet scantily-clad prostitutes to exchange information that will lead to future transactions between them. At least two undercover officers were stationed in the room of the building where the party was *1008being held, and a police raid began at approximately 4:40 a.m. The defendant was arrested at the scene, and ultimately convicted by a jury of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, one under Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b), involving the defendant’s possession of a loaded gun with intent to use it against another, and one under Penal Law § 265.03 (3), involving the defendant’s knowing possession of a loaded firearm outside of his home or place of business.
Here, in conducting our independent review of the weight of the evidence, I am satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The defendant argues that his convictions cannot survive a weight of the evidence review, primarily because another patron at the party had been observed with a holster, incoming patrons were searched at the main door downstairs, and an undercover officer, in all the confusion and excitement surrounding the police raid, could not have reliably observed the defendant. However, simply because another patron was wearing an empty holster and incoming patrons were searched does not mean that the defendant did not possess the loaded and operable gun. In fact, one of the undercover officers testified that, in light of the cursory nature of the search conducted upon him at the door, had he been carrying his own service weapon, he could have smuggled it into the party despite the search. The jury could have rationally inferred that the defendant could have done the same or obtained the gun through other means.
Moreover, regarding the reliability of the undercover officer’s observations at the time of the raid, the defendant actually drew attention to himself, according to the officer, by running through the crowd shouting “Five-O,” and scrambling to hide an object at or near an air conditioner, within mere feet of the officer. The lighting, though somewhat dimmed, was sufficient for the undercover officer to describe the defendant’s brown clothing and red baseball cap. The defendant matched the undercover officer’s description of him, admitted his presence at the scene, and admitted scrambling at the far end of the room to hide an object. While the defendant claimed that the object he hid was marijuana, the undercover officer recovered a gun, which was operable and loaded, from a window air conditioner installed at the far end of the room. On this record, the undercover police officer’s testimony, which the jury found credible, and which was supported by other evidence in crucial respects, supports the defendant’s conviction and is not against the weight of the evidence.
*1009In reaching its conclusion that the undercover officer’s testimony was incredible, the majority places great emphasis upon the portion of the officer’s testimony that the gun bounced back into the room from the window. Such evidence is not problematic, as the defendant testified on direct examination that he attempted to “toss” the object from his hand, from close enough to the window to be able to touch its window shade, which is to be distinguished from a “throw” of the object. On cross-examination, the undercover officer described the defendant’s action as a “lob” that the officer demonstrated, and which the court described as “an upward underhand motion.” If, as the officer described, the object was merely lobbed from a close distance, it does not strain credibility that it did not crash through the glass of the window. There is no evidence in the record regarding the thickness or strength of the window. Based upon the weight of the credible evidence, I find that the jury was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the interest of completeness, I would suggest that, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the language of the adverse inference charge was appropriate under the circumstances of this case (see People v Asaro, 94 AD3d 773 [2012], affd 21 NY3d 677 [2013]; People v Kotler, 31 AD3d 787 [2006]). Similarly, the Supreme Court properly instructed the jury on the definition of the term “possess,” as set forth in Penal Law § 10.00 (8), including the definition of physical and constructive possession (see CJI2d[NY] Possession: Physical and Constructive; People v Pilgrim, 293 AD2d 496 [2002]). The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Wright, 90 AD3d 679 [2011]). In any event, the challenged remarks were, in my view, fair comment on the evidence, were permissible rhetorical comment, constituted a fair response to defense counsel’s summation, or otherwise do not warrant reversal (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Hernandez, 92 AD3d 802, 803 [2012]). The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as the record reveals that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Finally, the photographs in evidence were not prejudicial, but merely completed the narrative of events leading up to the defendant’s arrest, and, in any event, any error in admitting them was harmless.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s judgment of conviction should be affirmed.