Opinion
Decided July 1, 2010.
APPEAL, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered December 29, 2009. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.
Testimony at the suppression hearing established that a police officer spotted a double-parked minivan, with its engine running, in a known drug-prone area. The officer approached defendant, and when asked why he was double-parked, defendant replied that he was waiting for a friend who was inside the grocery store across the street. Defendant reportedly had a calm demeanor. When the friend failed to return, the officer became suspicious, and believing that drug activity was taking place, asked defendant to show him paperwork for the vehicle. As defendant was retrieving the paperwork the officer observed two $100 bills near the center console of the vehicle and also a small one-inch bag. Although the bag was empty, there appeared to be green particles in the bag which the officer believed to be marijuana. After confirming that the small bag had contained marijuana, the officer searched the glove compartment and recovered nine new crack pipes, prescription drugs and registration papers. The prescription drugs were not in defendant's name. Moreover, the minivan was registered to a person of a different name but it had not been reported stolen. At that point, the officer searched the vehicle, and by tugging on the right passenger air bag compartment, he noticed velero material and determined there was a possibility of concealed items. Upon further searching, the officer discovered 253 bags of crack cocaine hidden in the compartment, whereupon he arrested defendant. After the arrest, defendant changed his story and told the officer that he had borrowed the minivan to buy "weed" and that he had nothing else to say. The officer further testified that he established that defendant lived just two blocks away from where he had double-parked the minivan.
People v Diaz, 68 AD3d 642, affirmed.
David Segal, New York City, for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City ( Malancha Chanda and Eleanor Ostrow of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM .
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), the trial evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to infer both that defendant exercised dominion and control over the van from which police recovered over four ounces of crack cocaine, and that defendant had knowledge that the drugs were secreted in a hidden compartment beneath the van's air bag cover (Penal Law § 220.18). Defendant's knowledge could be inferred from his sole possession of the van at the time the contraband was seized, his possession of nine unused crack pipes in the van's glove compartment, and his inconsistent and implausible accounts of his relationship to the van ( People v Reisman, 29 NY2d 278, 285 ["Knowledge (of the presence of illegal drugs) may be shown circumstantially by conduct or directly by admission, or indirectly by contradictory statements from which guilt may be inferred"]).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.