Opinion
August 1, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
We find that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in precluding the defendant from calling the codefendant Paul Danko as a witness solely for the purpose of causing Danko to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination (see generally, People v. Thomas, 51 N.Y.2d 466; People v. Sapia, 41 N.Y.2d 160, cert denied 434 U.S. 823; People v. Patrk, 191 A.D.2d 718).
We also find that the trial evidence supported the County Court's decision to instruct the jury on the statutory presumption of possession (see, Penal Law § 220.25; see generally, Ulster County Ct. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140). The defendant was outside the vehicle for less than 5 minutes at the time the cocaine was found (see generally, People v. Heizman, 127 A.D.2d 609; People v. Thomas, 162 A.D.2d 822), and there was no indication, aside from the defendant's self-serving statements, that the pouch containing the cocaine was concealed on the codefendant Halk's person prior to the arresting trooper ordering the defendant out of the car (see, People v. Lemmons, 40 N.Y.2d 505, 510-512).
Moreover, the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, e.g., People v. Okehoffurum, 201 A.D.2d 508; People v Watson, 177 A.D.2d 676). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.