People v. Gray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gray

113 A.D.3d 561, 979 N.Y.2d 517

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 30, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 561 (People v. Gray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Gray, 113 A.D.3d 561, 979 N.Y.2d 517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting expert testimony that the packaging and quantity of the drugs recovered from defendant was consistent with possession by a seller and inconsistent with mere personal use. This testimony was precisely within the scope of expert evidence permitted under People v Hicks (2 NY3d 750 [2004]). There is no merit to defendant’s suggestion that Hicks was overruled by People v Williams (20 NY3d 579, 585 [2013]).

We reject defendant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence supporting the unlawful entry element of criminal trespass. The evidence supports the inference that defendant knew he was not licensed or privileged to be in the lobby of a Housing Authority building where he was neither a resident nor an invitee. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Renwick, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting expert testimony that the packaging and quantity of the drugs recovered from defendant was consistent with possession by a seller and inconsistent with mere personal use. This testimony was precisely within the scope of expert evidence permitted under People v Hicks (2 NY3d 750 [2004]). There is no merit to defendant’s suggestion that Hicks was overruled by People v Williams (20 NY3d 579, 585 [2013]).

We reject defendant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence supporting the unlawful entry element of criminal trespass. The evidence supports the inference that defendant knew he was not licensed or privileged to be in the lobby of a Housing Authority building where he was neither a resident nor an invitee. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Renwick, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 561, 979 N.Y.2d 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gray-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack