From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 24, 1992
181 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

March 24, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis S. Bamberger, J.).


Evidence at trial was that defendant was observed by narcotics officers over a half hour period as he engaged in four separate hand-to-hand transactions on a Bronx street corner. Although defendant initially evaded apprehension by running away, a stash of drugs, including 128 vials of crack cocaine and 16 bags of marijuana, was recovered from the front passenger seat of an unlocked automobile parked near defendant's station of operation. The officers had observed defendant's entry and exit of that automobile prior to each hand-to-hand transaction. The officers also recovered, from the automobile's unlocked glove compartment, a bank book containing defendant's name and defendant's driver's license, as well as the automobile's registration certificate indicating that the car was not registered in defendant's name.

The trial court properly allowed the highly probative police testimony regarding defendant's activities during the half hour observation period, as material evidence, outweighing any prejudicial effect to defendant, of intent with respect to the crimes charged (see, e.g., People v Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364), as well as to complete a coherent narrative of the incident and avoid speculation as to the subsequent actions of the police leading to defendant's arrest (see, People v Conyers, 160 A.D.2d 318, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 786).

The trial court also properly denied defendant's motion for a hearing to suppress the physical evidence recovered from the automobile on the ground that defendant's motion papers failed to show requisite standing to controvert the search. Defendant's mere assertions of free entry into that unlocked automobile and storage of his personal property therein did not constitute sufficient sworn factual allegations to support a claim of legitimate possessory and privacy interest therein (see, People v Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351).

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing (People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 24, 1992
181 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Grant

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EARL GRANT, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 24, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
581 N.Y.S.2d 323

Citing Cases

People v. Crespo

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.). The trial court properly allowed…

People v. Bradley

We have considered defendant's remaining challenges to legal sufficiency and find them to be meritless.…