Opinion
May 22, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.).
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), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The record establishes that the defendant constructively possessed the drugs found in the purported grocery store. The arresting officer observed the defendant exiting the room containing the drugs immediately after the officer announced his presence. Moreover, the store contained little or no merchandise on the shelves. Notably, none of the rooms in the store had doors and the contraband was in plain view. This evidence provides a sufficient basis from which the jury could conclude that the defendant possessed the drugs in question (see, People v Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624; People v Davis, 144 A.D.2d 689). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). Any deficiencies with respect to the chain of custody of the drugs found on defendant's person were properly resolved by the jury (see, People v Donovan, 141 A.D.2d 835).
The hearing court's decision to deny the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence found in the purported grocery store, on the ground that the defendant lacked standing to contest the seizure, was proper (see, People v Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351; People v Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.