People v Padilla

People v Padilla 2011 NY Slip Op 07930 Decided on November 10, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 10, 2011
Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Román, JJ.
5983 752/09

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Ind. Respondent,

v

Kenneth Padilla, Defendant-Appellant.




Randall D. Unger, Bayside, for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Matthew T.
Murphy of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel Conviser, J. at hearing; Wayne M. Ozzi, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered September 8, 2010, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress a revolver recovered from his impounded car. The police conducted a proper inventory search, which was supported by sufficient documentation. The search produced a "meaningful inventory list" (People v Johnson, 1 NY3d 252, 256 [2003]), even though the
searching officer did not record every item he released to defendant's sister (see People v Black, 250 AD2d 494 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 922 [1998]), and we do not find there were any deficiencies of any kind that would warrant suppression of the revolver. Regardless of whether the officer suspected that contraband might be present, there was no evidence that the search was conducted as a ruse to discover incriminating evidence (see Johnson, 1 NY3d at 256). Defendant did not preserve his argument that the police improperly impounded his car, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternate holding, we reject it on the merits.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]), particularly when viewed in light of the statutory presumption of possession by all occupants of a vehicle (see Penal Law § 265.15[3]). Moreover, defendant was the owner, driver, and sole occupant, and the evidence, even without the automobile presumption, warrants the inference that he knew
there was a firearm in his car (see People v Reisman, 29 NY2d 278, 285-286 [1971], cert denied 405 US 1041 [1972]). [*2]

Defendant's remaining claims do not warrant reversal.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 10, 2011

CLERK