People v. Perez

• Decision Date: 02 March 1999
• Citation: 687 N.Y.S.2d 84,259 A.D.2d 274
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ALBERTO PEREZ, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

259 A.D.2d 274

687 N.Y.S.2d 84

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v.ALBERTO PEREZ, Appellant.

Decided March 2, 1999.

Concur €” Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

The court properly declined to deliver a circumstantial evidence charge, since the case against defendant did not rest exclusively on circumstantial evidence.Contrary to defendant's argument, a constructive possession case is not necessarily a circumstantial case (People v Daddona,81 NY2d 990, 992).Defendant's constructive possession of the contraband itself, and not merely the apartment in which the contraband was found, was established by direct evidence, namely defendant's close proximity, in a small studio apartment, to about $10,000 worth of cocaine and a gun, both of which were in plain view (see, People v David,234 AD2d 787, lv denied89 NY2d 1034;People v Robinson,225 AD2d 399, 400, lv denied88 NY2d 884).This was not a situation where evidence of dominion and control over an apartment required "the drawing of an additional inference"(People v...