Opinion
May 13, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's credibility determinations, including its rejection of defendant's testimony. There was overwhelming evidence of constructive possession (see, People v. Bundy, 90 N.Y.2d 918), consisting of defendant's acknowledged residence in the subject apartment for over a week prior to the arrest, his possession of the keys, the presence of his belongings including a beeper, and the presence of drugs and paraphernalia throughout the apartment, including a substantial amount of packaging materials and equipment in open view. There was ample evidence supporting the then-applicable requirement of defendant's knowledge of the weight of drugs possessed, where three times the statutory threshold amount was present, along with several scales for weighing drugs (see, People v. Sanchez, 86 N.Y.2d 27, 33-34).
The court properly admitted expert testimony concerning the manner in which the various paraphernalia found in the apartment were suitable for use in packaging drugs, as well as the expert's opinion that the apartment in question was being used for the packaging and distribution of drugs, because this evidence was relevant to the issues presented at trial and beyond the knowledge of the average juror, while not constituting an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact (see, People v. Polanco, 169 A.D.2d 551, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 965).
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.