Opinion
2014-02-26
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Hasan MUSTAFA, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William A. Loeb of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William A. Loeb of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered February 3, 2011, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Grosso, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of all the crimes of which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053,cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to all the crimes was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People established a sufficient chain of custody of certain drugs recovered from the defendant and another individual, and the People's evidence provided reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the evidence between its recovery and the trial ( see People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 494, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310;People v. Thomas, 92 A.D.3d 1084, 1086, 940 N.Y.S.2d 163;Matter of Kassan D., 287 A.D.2d 564, 564–565, 731 N.Y.S.2d 487;People v. Piazza, 121 A.D.2d 573, 574, 503 N.Y.S.2d 623). Any deficiencies in the chain of custody went only to the weight to be accorded the evidence, not its admissibility ( see People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d at 494, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d at 343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310;People v. Bain, 85 A.D.3d 1193, 1194, 926 N.Y.S.2d 301;People v. Delgado, 187 A.D.2d 447, 447–448, 589 N.Y.S.2d 536). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel during his pretrial Mapp hearing ( see Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081), as defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 155–156, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213;People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;People v. Elamin, 82 A.D.3d 1664, 1665, 919 N.Y.S.2d 661;cf. People v. Clermont, 22 N.Y.3d 931, 977 N.Y.S.2d 704, 999 N.E.2d 1149).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675). MASTRO, J.P., DICKERSON, LOTT and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.