People v. Nevins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nevins

203 A.D.2d 936, 611 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4940

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

DecidedApril 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 936 (People v. Nevins) 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. Nevins, 203 A.D.2d 936, 611 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the People’s proof is legally insufficient to establish that he constructively possessed the firearm and cocaine found during a search of a bedroom at 237 Emslie Street in Buffalo. Although defendant was not present during execution of the warrant, the discovery of numerous personal effects in the bedroom, including defendant’s current driver’s license and public assistance identification card, supported an inference that defendant resided in that room. There was no [937]*937evidence that anyone else’s personal effects were in that room and, despite the presence of the apartment owner and other apartment occupants, the police were required to break the padlock on the door of the bedroom before entering. That proof, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, is sufficient to warrant an inference that defendant had dominion and control over the firearm and cocaine found in the bedroom (see, Penal Law § 10.00 [8]; People v Watson, 56 NY2d 632). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, Jr., J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 4th Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the People’s proof is legally insufficient to establish that he constructively possessed the firearm and cocaine found during a search of a bedroom at 237 Emslie Street in Buffalo. Although defendant was not present during execution of the warrant, the discovery of numerous personal effects in the bedroom, including defendant’s current driver’s license and public assistance identification card, supported an inference that defendant resided in that room. There was no [937]*937evidence that anyone else’s personal effects were in that room and, despite the presence of the apartment owner and other apartment occupants, the police were required to break the padlock on the door of the bedroom before entering. That proof, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, is sufficient to warrant an inference that defendant had dominion and control over the firearm and cocaine found in the bedroom (see, Penal Law § 10.00 [8]; People v Watson, 56 NY2d 632). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, Jr., J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 4th Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 936, 611 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nevins-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack