Opinion
November 15, 1988
Appeal from the Erie County Court, Lo Manto, J.
Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a conviction, following a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06), two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03), criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.40) and unlawful possession of marihuana (Penal Law § 221.05). These convictions were the result of evidence received pursuant to a search warrant. Defendant contends that the People's proof was insufficient to establish his dominion and control over the controlled substances. Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the People and drawing all reasonable inferences in the People's favor (People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 437), we find the proof was sufficient to provide a rational trier of fact a valid line of reasoning to support these convictions (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Defendant owned the searched premises, had unlimited access, and was observed entering the premises approximately 12 times in the three weeks the apartment was under surveillance. Further, numerous personal papers of defendant, along with his firefighting uniform, were found during the search. Defendant also admitted to the police that he used marihuana and PCP, both of which were seized pursuant to the warrant, and that he knew of the existence in the apartment of another large jar containing Tylenol and codeine. Additionally, the PCP was discovered in a prescription bottle dated March 11, 1986 bearing defendant's name and address. Although other individuals had access to these premises, the proof establishing defendant's dominion and control sufficiently linked defendant to the apartment and the contraband to support the verdict (People v. Torres, 68 N.Y.2d 677; People v Robertson, 48 N.Y.2d 993; People v. Lopez, 112 A.D.2d 739).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.