People v. Robertson

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Robertson

401 N.E.2d 903, 48 N.Y.2d 993, 425 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2047

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 3, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by32 cases

This text of 401 N.E.2d 903 (People v. Robertson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Robertson, 401 N.E.2d 903, 48 N.Y.2d 993, 425 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2047 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be affirmed. We agree with the Appellate Division that the evidence indicating that defendant had control over the apartment was sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the jury that defendant constructively possessed the heroin (valued at $30,000) and drug paraphernalia located in the otherwise empty apartment. In light of the condition of the apartment and its contents, defendant’s manner of entry, combined with his possession of the key, the rent receipts and the realtor’s business card permitted the jury to find that the defendant had been in the apartment before and sufficed to prove control in this case (see People y Phiefer, 43 NY2d 719; cf. People v Gambino, 35 NY2d 932). As to defendant’s challenge to the search warrant, we deem it unnecessary to consider the legality of the initial police entry into the apartment, since there existed sufficient independent support for the warrant in the police officer’s *995 testimony before the issuing court concerning the information provided by the landlord.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be affirmed. We agree with the Appellate Division that the evidence indicating that defendant had control over the apartment was sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the jury that defendant constructively possessed the heroin (valued at $30,000) and drug paraphernalia located in the otherwise empty apartment. In light of the condition of the apartment and its contents, defendant’s manner of entry, combined with his possession of the key, the rent receipts and the realtor’s business card permitted the jury to find that the defendant had been in the apartment before and sufficed to prove control in this case (see People y Phiefer, 43 NY2d 719; cf. People v Gambino, 35 NY2d 932). As to defendant’s challenge to the search warrant, we deem it unnecessary to consider the legality of the initial police entry into the apartment, since there existed sufficient independent support for the warrant in the police officer’s *995 testimony before the issuing court concerning the information provided by the landlord.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 N.E.2d 903, 48 N.Y.2d 993, 425 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robertson-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack