People v. Zeng

• Decision Date: 14 October 2015
• Citation: 17 N.Y.S.3d 648 (Mem),132 A.D.3d 787,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07525
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. YONG X. ZENG, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

132 A.D.3d 787

17 N.Y.S.3d 648 (Mem)

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07525

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent

v.YONG X. ZENG, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Oct. 14, 2015.

Wang Law Office, PLLC, Flushing, N.Y. (William R. Stoltz of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Laura T. Ross, and Christine DiSalvo of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Modica, J.), rendered June 17, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the jury's findings that he knowingly possessed Ketamine, a controlled substance, and that he did so with the intent to sell it, were against the weight of the evidence. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 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 jury'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 ; 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 of these 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 ). The defendant failed to rebut the presumption of knowing and unlawful possession set forth in Penal Law § 220.25(1), which, under the circumstances of this case, applied to him (see People v. Leyva, 38 N.Y.2d 160, 166, 379 N.Y.S.2d 30, 341 N.E.2d 546 ; People v. Gonzales, 235 A.D.2d 493, 653 N.Y.S.2d 929 ), and the evidence adduced at trial supported the jury's finding that the defendant possessed Ketamine with the intent to sell it (see People v. Huebert, 30 A.D.3d 1018, 815 N.Y.S.2d 851 ; People v. Ruiz, 266 A.D.2d 319, 698 N.Y.S.2d 504 ; People v. Gallego, 155 A.D.2d 687, 548 N.Y.S.2d 62 ; People v. Jones, 138 A.D.2d 405, 525 N.Y.S.2d 689 ).

DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, HALL and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.