Opinion
January 31, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from his conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, contending that the proof was insufficient to show that he knew that the property, three oriental carpets, was stolen. Defendant's contention is lacking in merit.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of stolen property when he knowingly possesses stolen property with intent to benefit himself or another or to impede the owner's recovery of the property (Penal Law § 165.45). "Knowledge that property is stolen may be shown circumstantially, such as by evidence of recent exclusive possession, defendant's conduct or contradictory statements from which guilt may be inferred" (People v. Zorcik, 67 N.Y.2d 670, 671; see, People v. Von Werne, 41 N.Y.2d 584, 590; People v. Reisman, 29 N.Y.2d 278, 285-286, cert denied 405 U.S. 1041).
Here, the evidence was clearly sufficient to show that codefendant knowingly possessed stolen property, as we recently determined on his appeal (see, People v. Vaccarella, 177 A.D.2d 990), and the People's proof sufficiently linked defendant to Vaccarella's scheme by showing that the men shared guilty knowledge and a common criminal purpose. Defendant was present throughout Vaccarella's negotiations with the store owner, in particular, when he negotiated price, resisted the offer of a check and receipt, insisted on cash, and falsely stated that he lived out of town. Vaccarella consulted with defendant before accepting the store owner's offer of $700, which was approximately one-half the value of the stolen carpets. Defendant directly participated in negotiations, telling the store owner, in response to his offer of $700, "I thought we could get $800 or $900".
Further, defendant was in joint possession of the carpets, drove the van by which they were transported, and carried them into the shop. Recent unexplained possession of the carpets supports the inference of guilty knowledge. Finally, the carpets were wrapped in a grey blanket despite the fact that it was a clear day. That supports the inference that the men were trying to conceal the carpets because they knew that they were stolen.